Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:06, 8 August 2006

	Fair use (inactive)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Fair use, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Fair useWikipedia:WikiProject Fair useTemplate:WikiProject Fair useFair use

Initial discussion

Discussion moved here from Village pump

I'm wondering what the policy is for adding corporate logos to pages is (ex. CN). I've seen a few and am wondering if they should be removed. Vancouverguy 18:08, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a common policy but I have my own: DELETE! I think it makes a article look like its been sponsored or something. -- Viajero 00:09, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There is no policy. I say keep. It is valuable, I don't think anyone will assume the page is approved by the company. Tuf-Kat 00:14, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)

Just curious: in what way could a corporate logo be considered "valuable" in an encyclopedia article? I think my objection is primarily aesthetic: it just looks cheap. -- Viajero 20:13, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's time to develop a policy on this. Vancouverguy 23:50, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've seen political party logos on a few pages - I could add them as I go - but won't until we get a decision. It could be useful to help people recognise logos - I don't imagine people would think that the page was sponsored. Secretlondon 00:00, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm... I have no objection at all to the logo on the IBM page, for example, and I'm about to add one to the Uniting Church in Australia page. What's the problem? I think they add value to the articles. Andrewa 09:13, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I would imagine that most, if not all, logos are copyright and should not be included without the permission of the owner? Bmills 09:37, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Logos are a sensitive issue for many companies and are generally licensed to a single user publication at a time without any redistribution rights (other than normal viewing). I also want to use items like company logos (and Time magazine covers) and there's an agency which issues these licenses. In a phone call a couple of weeks ago they indicated that there would be no problem licensing the Misplaced Pages to use logos on an exclusive basis but that doing so allowing reuse by others was not something they could do. Other encyclopedias would need to request their own permission (which would also probably be granted if they were serious encyclopedias). Should I proceed with the applicaton process? JamesDay 12:01, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ok, this all seems rational, but let's decide whether we want to have logos in the encyclopedia. My reasons against:

• free advertising for corporations
• looks like page is sponsored
• aesthetic: tacky, tacky, tacky.

Misplaced Pages desperately needs more graphics. But are we this desperate???

-- Viajero 12:24, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

First off, should any article that currently includes a logo have it removed until permission is sought (if that is what is decided)?

Second: Viajero raises some interesting points:

• one of the primary purposes of a logo is to promote the organisation to which it belongs. By adding logos to articles about companies, Misplaced Pages will be contributing to this promotion, wittingly or otherwise.

• what does the logo add to an article beyond this promotion of the logo owner? Most article about companies are likely to contain links to the company Web site, where the logo will be there for all interested parties to see.

IMHO, Misplaced Pages would be better off without logos. Bmills 12:37, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No need to immediately remove them because fair use applies to logos as well as other things. Logos are used to associate a visual symbol with a company to aid in recognition. So, yes, we should include almost all corporate logos. They also add to the visual appeal of he Misplaced Pages and are good for that reason. Requests for logos for use in encyclopedias are so common that there's a specific applicaton type "encyclopedia" in the service which handles the licensing. JamesDay 14:08, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

IANAL but the use of the logo in an article about the organisation which owns and is represented by the logo isn't likely to be a problem IMO so long as there is a caption on the logo which clearly identifies it as a sample of the logo, and the logo is accurately rendered. The image itself may be copyright, this is a different issue and needs to be resolved separately. This same caption IMO removes the problem of anyone mistakenly thinking that the organisation is somehow involved with the article, or with Misplaced Pages, other than in the obvious way that the article is about them. Without both this caption and accuracy, use of the logo is misleading and probably illegal, and I'd expect the owners to object.

There are three reasons the logo should be there. Firstly, it helps to identify the organisation concerned. Secondly, it's information that is encyclopedic, will be of interest to people reading the article, and which they can reasonably expect to find there. Thirdly, IMO it looks good.

So my suggestion for logo guidelines while the technicalities are being further investigated:

• Use only in articles whose name is the organisation which either owns or uses the logo.
• Must be captioned.
• Must be accurate.
• Normal copyright requirements on the image.
• Encouraged provided these guidelines are met.

Is there anything along those lines in the license mentioned above? Does the license deal with all trademarks, or just those which are also corporate logos? It sounds worth having, provided signing up doesn't in any way compromise our existing commitments under the GFDL, which it may. Definitely investigate.

Alternatively, do we need a boilerplate text to ask permission of individual organisations? Andrewa 16:00, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Most of those guidelines are good, but I'd query the last one - encouraged, or merely tolerated? Martin 21:12, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Encouraged because they are human knowledge that readers are likely to want to obtain from us, and that's exactly what Misplaced Pages is there to provide. I've given three arguments in favour above. There are several arguments against put above too. Let's look at them.

Firstly, it is argued that using the logo constitutes free publicity. That's true, but if that's a reason for deleting the logo, then it's an equally good reason for deleting the whole article if it reflects favourably on the organisation. Surely we don't want to do that?

If accurate information reflects well on a company, that's their good luck or planning. A well-designed logo does reflect well on a company. But we shouldn't censor this information just because we don't like the corporate world.

Secondly, it has been argued that it's misleading to use the logo. I think the guidelines avoid this problem.

Thirdly, it's been suggested that it's illegal. This should be investigated, but I'm skeptical of this claim, again provided it is properly captioned. If it turns out to be the case, I might instead just use a photo of a piece of equipment, signed building or similar clearly showing the logo. But I'm confident that most organisations would prefer to have their logo clearly and accurately shown rather than displayed in this manner.

Fourthly, it's been suggested that it just looks bad. Obviously I don't agree, but this seems to be the main sticking point. I'm happy to concede it provided we don't sanction arbitrary removal of logos as a result. They are content. People who don't like a particular company or the whole corporate structure should be discouraged from removing logos. If they really do look bad, someone else will do it.

I think we should move this discussion to a talk page. Vancouverguy 16:06, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Or perhaps to a style page? Andrewa 00:25, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

BTW, there's a very interesting quote and some links on this topic at Image:Canadian National Herald.png. Andrewa 00:53, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There aren't any disadvantages to the Misplaced Pages from obtaining a license. It's free protection from the possibility of legal action. While we may have rights anyway, a license is good. The license will only be to the Misplaced Pages (no derivative works of any sort) because that's all the service is authorized to give. That doesn't restrict the ability of other encyclopedias to obtain their own license, nor the ability of others to use the images under fair use or "not copyrightable" claims. We aren't limiting our rights or those of others in any way, we're simply getting access to the collection and protecton from legal action. Would be nice if they were GFDL but that's not a license the service is authorized to offer, so it's not a license they can convey to us. So, we'd document our license, tell others where to apply to get their license and note that the license in no way limits the rights of others to use the images as provided for by fair use or other provisions of copright law. Jamesday 18:31, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sounds good. It would require some mods to Misplaced Pages:Image use policy, and other places, probably pretty minor. And we'd want a copy of the licence itself in a page somewhere, of course. Perhaps getting the text of this proposed agreement is the next thing? Andrewa 03:14, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't know if a license is needed. First we are not selling anything. Publishing the logo in the WP context is informational; usually most ® TMs are covered by the class definitions; using them on Misplaced Pages to enhance an encyclopedia entry is not confusing or creating any kind of problem with the logo's ability to represent the brand (actually we are clarifying the relationship between the logo and the brand). The logo is something used to identify different brands, etc., it is probably fair use (that is not a legal opinion) in the Misplaced Pages context. I really don't think that making small thumbnails of logos is going to incur the wrath of the corporate behemoths that control us all, anyway, I'd like to see what they do. After all they can edit the page too, it is a wiki, no? See MBTI, the trade mark is not the same as the name or the logo; it part of the knowledge that the human race has created, why not acknowledge it for what it is &8212; excuse me, but I do not think it is corporate advertising. — Alex756 03:36, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with Alex when it comes to need - it's part of why I don't think our getting a license will limit others, even if the license is exclusive to us. However, images other than logos are available and while those are generally associated with press releases, things like Time magazine covers are a bit less likely than logos to be fair use. The sources are:
  • Newscom (the people I've discussed this with, contemplating the free services only)
  • AP Photo Archive (not discussed yet, also contemplating free only)
  • PR Newswire, even though this is only the text portion. The text is mostly going to be fair use for almost any use or not desired here because it's not GFDL but having a license is free legal protection. Not sure just how keen we should be on rejecting portions of press releases in articles because they aren't GFDL - I'm of the opinion that press release implied licenses and fair use are broader than the GFDL, even though they are routinely used to justify copyvio reports.
• Jamesday 06:19, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Continued discussion

A second thought occurs to me. I haven't tried the experiment, but I assume that Misplaced Pages markup lets one link directly to an image on the Web (so that it would appear to be an integral part of the article, but the image would be located/hosted on the company's own server). I know there is some controversy about "deep linking," but it seems to me that for corporate logos it would be reasonable to link to a logo image on the company's own website. For one thing, by using a link rather than a copy, the company keeps control of the image and can change/remove it. For another thing, corporate websites can be assumed to be relatively stable--the link to the log image might get stale, but at least the website itself is probably going to stay around. Dpbsmith 13:23, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think we do need a decision/advice on this. We can talk and talk but no-one knows what the actual policy is. Without a decision we have the situation where people don't know whether they can add logos or not, or delete ones that are already there. This needs sorting. Secretlondon 13:26, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

By the way... I made this point in the copyright violations talk but... I'm not sure what the right venue is. It's all well and good to talk about fair use, but there is currently no way to upload a fair use image without lying. That is, when you upload the image you check a box that says "I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Misplaced Pages copyright." If you don't do this, you can't upload the file. Now, personally, I see a big difference between (say) these assertions:

• • I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Misplaced Pages copyright.
  • I affirm that this file complies with the Misplaced Pages policy on image usage.
  • I affirm that to the best of my knowledge this image was created before 1900 and was obtained from a source that does not contain any assertion of copyright
  • I affirm that my use of this image in the specific article entitled (whatever) is covered by "fair use"
  • My name is Cubeb P. Fungus, I live at 123 Main Street, Zenith, Winnemac, and I hold Misplaced Pages harmless for any copyright infringement claims resulting from the use of this image in Misplaced Pages

Anyway, there are a lot of forms of text I'd be willing to check when uploading an image, but I'm don't feel good about checking the current one unless I darn well know that the image IS copyrighted and that the owner HAS agreed to license it. Usually, that means it's an image I've created myself.

The present text does not fit public domain or fair-use images.

Unless, of course, I'm missing something.

FWIW, it seems to me that the use of a company's logo on an article about the company is highly appropriate and definitely adds something to the article. In the case of a company with a long history, images of how the logo evolved over time would (IMHO) be nice to have, too.

Dpbsmith 17:35, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Here's my view on the situation:

1. The fact that the logos are trademarks is largely irrelevant as we're using them on articles directly related to the company.
2. Logos are generally copyrighted.

I think that because of the second point we shouldn't include them because we're already in somewhat dodgy ground over the "fair use" criteria as it is. However if a logo is out of copyright then I have no objection to it being included. An alternative option is to use photographs which represent the company and include the logo, for example photographs of logos on the side of company buildings. --Imran 19:09, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The fair use claim isn't dodgy. It's a pretty clear example, as is the trademark situation. It's very different from the UK fair dealing situation. Takes a while to get used to just how much broader US fair use is. The best I can suggest is reading some of the decisions about fair use to get some idea of just how it works in practice. Jamesday 20:05, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing that an encyclopedia could use those images under fair use. But based upon a thorough reading of the GFDL I believe that fair-use is not compatible with it. I think that you can't include fair-use material in a GFDL document because you have no right to relicence it. --Imran 23:07, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's a known limitation that the image upload (and all contributions, for that matter) only allow you to say GFDL at the moment. You should clarify after uploading, with an edit to the image description page which gives the actual copyright status and the most complete image source details you have. This lets people easily check on the status and work out what their own reuse rights are. I put the copyright summary in the description of that edit. The ability to link to images outide the Misplaced Pages was removed some months ago and it appears that it's not going to be restored any time soon. Use of a corporate logo in an encyclopedia article about the company doesn't create any grounds for a trademark action, in part because there's no prospect of the article causing people to believe that the Misplaced Pages is a product of the trademark holder. Jamesday 13:27, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Common sense says that it should be OK to use a corporate logo in an encyclopedia article about the company for the reason you mention—the chances of getting into serious trouble would be negligible. It's extremely unlikely that the company would object at all, and if they did it's virtually certain that the objection would take the form initially of simply requesting removal and utterly unlikely that the company would take any further action if the logo were promptly and cheerfully removed in response to such a request. I'm always uneasy about applying common sense to intellectual property, but it seems to me that common sense plus due diligence plus willing to respond to complaints if any should be OK.

But I'm still not clear on how Misplaced Pages sets policy, or, for this issue, what the policy is.

I wonder whether, in formulating a policy on logo use, it would be prudent to include a suggested boilerplate caption for logos, such as "Company logo of XYZ corporation. This image may be trademarked and/or copyrighted. All rights belong to the image's owner." Including a phrase about "this company is not associated with Misplaced Pages" would probably cross the line into paranoia... Dpbsmith 13:57, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages sets policy generally by those with an interest in the subject discussing it and allowing due notice for people to see what is happening, then getting input as the use becomes more widespread. Any policy here is really temporary, pending the chance that it might at some point be modified in the future. If you'd like to write logo policy, just go ahead and edit the policy page to say what you think it should say, including a proposed poicy header and the date of the proposal, then people will discuss it and adjust to meet their preferences and we'll end up with a combination of the views of those participating... The image page should include some note about trademarks but I personally prefer to limit the text of the caption to wording like "limited copying" or similar and have that link to the image description page. That gives people appropriate notice that it's not GFDL or PD, without being unduly verbose. Then proceed to use logos slowly and give people time to notice and see and participate in the discussion if they wish. Jamesday 18:35, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I just added "Not GFDL" as part of the suggested boilerplate to be used when uploading a logo. That's because I just uploaded a logo, and decided that saying "see Misplaced Pages:Logos" was perhaps putting too much of a burden on the user. Assuming people actually bother to use the boilerplate and that people actually read the description before using the image, it seems to me that a "not GFDL" note needs to be obvious, since it is different from most Misplaced Pages images. Hopefully if it's clear that there are special usage considerations, people will bother to follow the Misplaced Pages:Logos link. Dpbsmith 23:37, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Discussion of current proposal

OK, then. Here goes nothing. See Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#Proposal_for_Image_Use_Policy_regarding_Corporate_Logos for a proposal.

Dpbsmith 23:54, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I disagree with some of the proposed rules as outlined on the main page. Here's why.

"The only appropriate use of a corporate logo is in an article that describes the company in question (that is, in the specific article entitled "XYZ Corporation")."

There are many more appropriate uses of corporate logos, for instance, to demonstrate the design style of the person who designed the logo, or in articles criticizing a company, and in many occasions that I cannot currently imagine.

Good point, particularly "to demonstrate the design style of the person who designed the logo." For example, one would obviously want them in an article about Raymond Loewy. (Yikes! It didn't Wiki-link--there's no article on Raymond Loewy ???? !!!!!) But, can you formulate a reasonable guideline? Dpbsmith

"Before including a corporate logo, take usual care to ensure that the article represents a neutral point of view. The article need not be an ad or puff piece. However, a corporate logo should not be used in close juxtaposition to text that is obviously critical of, or highly unflattering to, the company. (Similarly, defaced logos or logo parodies should not be used)."

To the contrary, a logo, especially a logo parody, is excellently suited for an article critical of a company, as it can help illustrate the sort of gripe people have with the company.

On the other hand, the official company logo on the company's article page has little chance of adding anything to the article. Read the IBM article. Now read it and watch the logo. Have you learned anything? Probably not.

Read the article on Edward Kennedy, or Beethoven, or Stephen Crane. Now read it and watch the photograph. Have you learned anything? My left brain hasn't. Nevertheless, I think the pictures add something to the articles. Modern encyclopedias generally have them. Why? (Not a rhetorical question). My own answer: well, there's a sense of identification—oh yeah, I've seen (that guy) (that logo) before. Oh, that's the guy whose bust is on Schroeder's toy piano. Or (that guy) (that logo) looks (older) (younger) than the version I'm familiar with. There's a sense of visual style—Stephen Crane looks younger, handsomer, and a spiffier dresser than I would have imagined, and, of course, is dressed in an old-fashioned way. In most (all?) cases, when a picture of a person is presented on Misplaced Pages, it is a flattering portrait that, one imagines, presents the people visually in the way the person wished to be presented. I think there's a valid parallel with logos here. Corporations are legally persons, and the corporate logo is the equivalent an individual's "official" portrait. Dpbsmith 13:23, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I especially have to object to the singled-out urging to "take usual care to ensure that the article represents a neutral point of view". If a person's or group's displeasure with a company is described in an article, that should also happen in an NPOV way. With the current wording you are suggesting that only bland, meaningless articles can be NPOV, and that an article in which criticism on a company is described cannot by definition by NPOV.

What I was trying to do was suggest that since a company does have some kind of legal interest in and right to control the use of their logo (I'm carefully avoiding the use of the phrase "intellectual property), I think it is appropriate to be more careful about using a company's logo. Words that represent a non-neutral point of view are covered by free speech. Using a logo might not be. Incidentally, I like some personality and flavor in my encyclopedia articles--I love the Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica and hate the short stubby articles in, say, World Book, that read as if they were approved by a Texas schoolbook selection committee.

I am also afraid that the appearance of a logo on a company page might be construed by some overzealous regulars as a reason to refuse or revert edits that otherwise would have gone in. It would have a stifling effect on the 'be bold' policy.

"In the event of a formal complaint about Misplaced Pages's use of a logo, from an entity that can be reasonably assumed to officially represent the company owning the logo, the appropriate response is for whoever receives the complaint to remove the logo promptly and cheerfully. No attempt should be made to re-insert the logo (except perhaps under very extraordinary circumstances, and only after extensive discussion)."

I would say that the most logical person to remove a logo is the representative of the company. This is a Wiki. If they don't like the use of their logo, they can edit the page themselves.

That dull thud you just heard was the sound of base of my palm making striking with my forehead. Dpbsmith

branko 23:54, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've made some changes to address the issues discussed above. Putting the logo floating to the right at the start of the article is usually all that's required to be trouble-free. That's the text which is likely to be most neutral and the spot where the logo is best able to confirm that people are in the right place - doing exactly the job which the company intends the logo to do. Jamesday 19:01, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I like that much better, thanks. :-) branko 01:05, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Should logos be presented with some kind of distinctive "visual isolation fence?"

This just occurred to me. Should there be some suggested style guide for the visual presentation of a logo that includes some kind of distinctive frame--e.g. presenting the logo right-aligned but with a dotted line below and to the left of it--to cut it off and visually separate it from the text of the article (to emphasize that the logo is there as a fact about the company and does not mean that the accompanying text was authored by the company or was vetted or endorsed by it?

(I'm not presenting an example because I don't know enough about wiki markup to give a specific example (and don't have time to experiment right now...))

Just a thought. Dpbsmith 13:26, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't think this is necesary. The usual float right markup introduces a one or two em gap between logo and text and people will generally recognize the logo. Jamesday 19:01, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Other sites using the Misplaced Pages logo

What about other sites using the Misplaced Pages logo, as on http://wikipedia.t-st.de/ ? - Patrick 07:13, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Seems to be a read-only mirror of the German Misplaced Pages, or parts of it, using the weekly SQL dumps . -- till we *) 20:59, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

Logos

Hello again,
and sorry for my perfectible english. I see that my question about the presence of commercial logos in wikipedia pages has disappeared from the village pump, so I put it again because from my point of view, these logos don't bring any information; on the other side such a logo entertain the image of the company in our minds, that's why I consider it as advertising. Why do you think commercial firms pay a lot of money to have their logos visible during big events? Hémant 15:47, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• Please provide examples of (links to) articles where logos might be improperly displayed. I think it is an individual matter dependent upon relevance to the article (for example if not a copyvio, it might well be appropriate to display the logo of CocaCola in the article on colas) - Marshman 17:45, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
• It's generally perfectly appropriate. If a TV news was covering a story about Ford, they'd show the logo. They'd show it if Ford was creating new jobs, firing lots of people, had broken some world record, or made some car that killed its occupants. -- Finlay McWalter 17:51, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• Take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Logos and Misplaced Pages:Logos and join the discussion. Most of the Village Pump discussion was moved there. Discussions here and elsewhere led to the drafting of a proposed policy, which, to date, has not gotten enough discussion and debate.

My own view is that the logo is the the corporate equivalent of a person's portrait. I feel that a picture of Mark Twain or Hans Christian Andersen or Stephen Crane or Nicole Kidman adds something to an encyclopedia article, even though it is hard to make any left-brained logical explanation of precisely what information it conveys. In similar manner, I think that a logo is a very reasonable thing to have in an article about a company. As to the point that the logo promotes the company, well, so does the mere presence of an article (by indicating that the company is significant enough to deserve mention in an encyclopedia). Any article on practically anything of contemporary commercial significance can be regarded as having a promotional effect. Should we not have articles on J. K. Rowling or Nicole Kidman or Eminem on the basis that commercial firms "pay a lot of money" to publicize these people? That's my $0.02, go to Misplaced Pages talk:Logos and Misplaced Pages:Logos and let us have yours. Dpbsmith 23:59, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Notes on Jan 3rd changes

I wanted to address the concerns of some Wikipedians that logo use promotes the commercial interests of the company. I therefore added a paragraph describing what I see as the rationale for including a logo in an encyclopedia article:

The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of, e.g. Stephen Crane or Nicole Kidman. It is difficult to explain in words what information is conveyed by such a portrait, yet most users feel that they provide something valuable. The logo should be regarded as the corporate portrait.

I also added this:

• Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote the company. Generally, logos should be used only when the company and its logo are reasonably familiar (or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons).

This is perhaps so subjective as to be utterly useless; consider its inclusion a trial balloon. My concern here is to fend off teeming hordes of millions of people putting in 640x480-pixel logos for Sam's Central Street Gas and Convenience Mart (Buy Your Mass Lottery Tickets Here). Probably won't happen (particularly not as long as image uploads are disabled) and if it did, the policy probably wouldn't stop it, but, there it is. Dpbsmith 14:19, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with Generally, logos should be used only when the company and its logo are reasonably familiar (or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons). A logo is always topical for an encyclopedia entry, in part because it illustrates how the company is trying to present itself and that is a useful part of the description of every company. I think the general image guidelines will eliminate the use of excessively large logos. Jamesday 01:02, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Logos of other encyclopedias

User:Lupin has removed the following logo use guideline from the article:

• In no case should the logo of any encyclopedia or other reference work be used in a Misplaced Pages article.

and asked for a justification of this rule. This happened in response to my removing the logo from the Encarta article and listing the logo on Images for deletion because of this guideline. (Note that Lupin and Lupo are two different users! :-) Lupo 09:55, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have tentatively reinserted the logo use guideline, because I put it there in the first place and still think it is a darn good idea. I say this is tentative because this, and other portions of this page, have received very little discussion to date.

Here's why I think it's a good idea. Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer. I am not an amateur lawyer. I am not a particularly expert layperson in matters of intellectual property.

• I don't believe there is any area of intellectual property law that is clearcut. Every decision to sail close to the wind involves some mental calculation. In the case of the use of a trademarked logo, we need to ask more than "is it legal?" We need to ask: do we think the trademark owner's lawyers think it's legal? If not, how how likely is it that the trademark owner will threaten lawsuit? Will sue? Will actually cause Misplaced Pages measurable pain? Any such matter that actually proceeds to litigation will produce actual pain, and the outcome depends on the interplay of an enormous amount of human judgement and the ability of the litigants to pay legal fees.
• In the case of trademarks, much turns on the question of whether a naive consumer could possibly be confused by the use of the trademark. This, in turn, depends on whether the company allegedly infringing is conceivably considered to be in the same business as the company whose trademark it is using. For example:
  • Dell Books (now a branch of Bantam Doubleday Dell) would have to be nuts to try to sue Dell Computer, because nobody in their right mind thinks that Dell Computer publishes crossword puzzle magazines. Therefore it's very unlikely that they would even send a lawyer letter to Dell Computer,
  • In 1977, Apple, the Beatles' music company, would have had to be nuts to complain about Apple Computer Inc. using their name, because at that time nobody in their right mind saw any connection between computers and music.
  • Later, of course, Apple the music company did sue and settled out of court on the understanding that Apple would quit selling anything music-related--and at that time Apple did drop its MIDI gear.
  • I'm not quite sure what's happening now, but Apple darn well is in the music business now, and even though nobody thinks they have anything to do with the Beatles' company, there darn well is a trademark issue, and it's been rumored that Apple (Computer) paid Apple (Music) a hefty fee to keep them happy.
  • Infocom, the computer game company, used to publish a newsletter/ad/insert called "The New Zork Times" that was got up to look like a little newspaper with the title in Gothic text. They got a lawyer letter from The New York Times. They changed the name of their newsletter to The Status Line. Even though nobody in their right mind thought an 8-1/2 by 11 leaflet on text adventure games was connected to the Sulzberger colossus, I am sure that one of the reasons why Infocom went along quietly was that they realized that it was dangerous to use even a joking reference to a newspaper on something that looked like a newspaper.
  • Michael Robertson and Microsoft are locked in a serious battle over the use of the name Lindows. Even though anyone in their right mind ought to understand that Lindows is not Windows, it is a computer operating system, and the name is intended to convey that it is like Windows, with all the warm fuzzy feelings that convey. Nobody can guess how this one will turn out, but, right or wrong, using a name like Windows for a computer operating system is skating on thin ice, and I'm sure even Robertson would acknowledge that.
• For no doubt good reasons, Robertson thinks it's worthwhile to fight such a battle. Misplaced Pages's purpose in life is not to try to fight some kind of battle about IP law. That's the job of the EFF, not Misplaced Pages.
• So, even though nobody in their right mind would think that just because we put an Encarta logo on an article about Encarta would make a reader think that Misplaced Pages was trying to borrow Encarta's good name, I think that our policy ought to involve putting some prudent distance between us and possible trouble.
• I thought and think that we were on pretty safe ground using logos of (say) Howard Johnson's, because nobody is going to try to buy Tendersweet frozen fried clam strips from Misplaced Pages.
• I thought and still think that the logo of anything even vague encyclopedia-like makes Misplaced Pages far more vulnerable if the logo owner feels like causing trouble for Misplaced Pages.

So, for the time being, I'm putting that guideline back. Once more.

(And I gotta say that of all the encyclopedia logos to fool with, using an Encarta logo, when everyone knows that Microsoft is like a vicious, mad, rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth junkyard pit bull known for spirited assertion of whatever it thinks are its intellectual-property rights, is, well, not the height of prudence).

The real question is: in cases like this should we "be bold" and wait for the logo owner to issue a relatively polite lawyer letter that hopefully will never come? Or should we have a cautious policy in place which, in case of trouble we can point to, and a record of removing contributions that violate policy?

And, in conclusion, may I quote good old Author Unknown:

"Here's to the memory of old John Jay

He died defending his right of way

He was right as rain as he rolled along

But he's just as dead now as if he'd been wrong."

Dpbsmith 20:39, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is an interesting point which hadn't occurred to me. Are there any wikipedians known to have the relevant legal expertise to decide if this is justified or simply paranoia?

If the decision to keep the guideline is made, perhaps the pictures on the pages Nordisk familjebok, Wikinfo and 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica should be reviewed.

Another question that occurs to me is that if there is a legal threat from having a page with Encarta's icon, is there not a similar legal threat from having a page titled 'Encarta'? It seems to me that a similar case for confusion could be made. Lupin 22:20, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello. I came here from Misplaced Pages talk:General disclaimer#trademarks. In case they help, here are my thoughts.

1. Wikinfo's image is uploaded by Fred Bauer, who is the founder and owner of the project. There is a fair chance that the very owner of the logo's copyright (& trademark right if that exists) is giving wikipedia a GFDL permission. And considering that Fred's project is a friendly fork from Misplaced Pages, it is hardly surprising.
2. Some say logos' informational value cannot clearly be verbalized, but here are some (not all) values verbalized. I personally think logo informs us of many things. It could help readers to associate/ identify certain products & services to an organization. It may be a subject of cultural analysis - logos of different ages, industries, or societies could be compared by someone.
3. Finally, I am not a lawyer, and I know very little about trademarks, but my naive guess is that use of trademarks is problematic when the area of business or service is overlapping. When Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedia uses some other encyclopedia's trademark, that could lead to a violation. When Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedia uses some ice candy bar's logo, that is not likely to be in violation. Trademarks might be registered for specific of area(s) of business. Trademark owner has the exclusive right to use the registered trademark in that specified area(s), and some related areas maybe, but not all areas of the society. The article Trademark seems to be in agreement with my understanding. (Though I could well be wrong). So regarding the current policy in discussion, I think there is some ground to keep it as it is. I am not sure how to handle international issues here. Some trademarks are not internationally registered, though it is probably internationally copyrighted (because of the Berne Convention, etc.), do we want to apply the same policy to those images at English Misplaced Pages?
4. As with other images, it would also be good to clarify the copyright status of the image (GFDL, fair use, etc.) for downstream users. It helps wikipedians active in other languages (such as I) can make an informed decision whether or not to copy it to another wikipedia. Tomos 00:28, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Following Tomos using a logo from any source should be examined carefully before integrating it into Misplaced Pages content, just like fair use the use of other intellectual property is subject to the constraints of economic exploitation of such property. Should a logo be used purely for informational purposes that illuminate the history, meaning, source or corporate purpose of such logo such informational use should be contemplated in an encyclopedic context such as Misplaced Pages. There are many volunteers who are worried about "commercial" downstream use of Misplaced Pages content. Information does not exist in a vacuum, and thus there are times when informational content in Misplaced Pages is appropriate but it may raise some questions for other derivative works. That does not mean it violates the principles of the GFDL. It just means that anyone who adopts a Misplaced Pages article is going to have to decide for themselves if they are misusing someone else's property. I need to point out that even though I am a lawyer, this is not legal advice. It is just my personal observation. — © Alex756 07:55, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Logos as trademarks

Encyclopedia logos should be fine as long as they follow the other guidelines I would think. Fair use is for copyright. Is there something similar for registered trademarks? My assumption is if you are not using trademark to compete or influence the ability of the company in a financial way then the only protection they have is copyright and then fair use applies.

I'm assuming the restrictions on some goverment logos are like the ones on money, you are limited in size and color. I can't imagine any logo being completely outlawed. Gbleem 06:26, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be trademark not logo? Are all logos trademarks? Gbleem 06:26, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A logo, if sufficiently creative, can be copyrighted. It's also almost probably a trademark, so both aspects need to be considered. So, you need both a use which is fair in trademark law - not confusing to consumers - and a use which is fair use in copyright law - as purely informational use in articles about the company is almost certain to be. The reason to avoid them for other encyclopedias is to avoid giving works which have a strong financial incentive to harm us ammunition to use to produce a legal case against us, even though we'd expect to win such a case. Jamesday 13:54, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Because logos are trademarks the first point:

• Corporate logos should be presumed to be trademarks.

should be:

• Corporate logos should be presumed to be trademarks and should therefore always be labeled as such with the trademark character and the name of the trademark holder.

This is because trademark holders lose their rights (IANAL) if they don't enforce their trademark, i.e. insist they own it everywhere it appears. So long as Misplaced Pages publicly acknowledges a trademark it should be ok to use it. (Although the addition of copyright into the mix is another matter.) You see this sort of acknowledgement all the time in technical manuals, a boilerplate section at the beginning of the book that says "all <these> are trademark their respective owners" or some such phrasing.--Kop 08:35, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wine Labels

I've been uploading some wine labels (see Big White House for an example) under the "logo" rationale. This strikes me as the sort of thing that's perfect under fair use, as the interest is both artistic (many people collect wine labels) and practical (you can easily find the bottle at a store). Does anyone know for certain whether this is or is not fair use? I could always delete them all if need be, but I'd rather not. :( --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:36, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why not. We're doing a similar thing over at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Beer --Sean κ. ⇔ 20:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages and Copyright Logo (and slogans)

Hello all,

I strongly feel that Misplaced Pages rapidly becoming authoritative repository of unbiased, non-aligned and/or neutral-opinion knowledge repository, one should not restrict the knowledge in any form. Unless restricted by source of logos and slogans of organizations (including commercial organizations/companies) Misplaced Pages can accomodate them and continue to grow in all dimensions. It's successfull because it is not restricted because it is neutral/unbiased.

With regards,

-Harshal

Government logos

What about government logos, not a federal govt agency's, but in particular, a US city's logo or seal? I was hoping to add Vancouver, Washington 's logo (which is a stylized V) to the wikipedia article, but on their website they say all images, text, etc. are copyright the "City of Vancouver".. --Kvuo 21:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

As a second part of this question, how are public domain, trademarked images handled? The Misplaced Pages:Logos article states: "Specific U.S. law prohibits the reproduction of designated logos of US government agencies without permission. Use restrictions of such logos should be followed and permission obtained before use, if required."

What are the specific citations and scope for these laws? Are logos limited "in connection with commercial ventures or products in any way that suggests presidential support or endorsement" (Grant Dixton, associate counsel to the president ), or is it a way to apply a pseudo-copyright to public domain materials? In my case, a state agency has trademarked some very posh historical roadside markers. Have we secured permission for , , or File:Pennsylvania state seal.png? Thanks, GChriss 21:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What about historical logos drawn by a third party?

Hi, I got a problem with multiple logos. Could anyone please give some advice? The situation is as follows:

Footbal club A used a logo until 1950. Person B created a computer drawing of that old-style logo and posted it on some forum. User C uploads it to Misplaced Pages with no licensing information. Are these logos fair use? Please consider:

• Is there any creative work on part of Person B (the creator of the drawing) which could be protected? (I don't think so, but I'm not 100% sure as they didn't just photograph it; they actually "drew" it.)
• The rules say to use a logo that represents the way the owner likes to present themselves. This is obviously not the case. Is that reason enogh not to include the logo (in some historical section of the article)?

Thanks for any ideas, --Glimz 00:56, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

It's a fuzzy area on several counts. Trademark law generally does not apply to trademarks that are no longer used. Copyright may exist in the old logo. I would suggest that copyright does not exist in the drawing of it, because it is an attempt to copy the old logo as faithfully as possible. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Re the "rules:" the reason for the rule about using a logo "that represents the way the owner likes to present themselves" is pragmatic. IANAL. Regardless of legality, common sense says that a trademark owner is not likely even to bother threatening legal action unless they think the use of the trademark hurts them in some way. One way they can be hurt is if the use of the trademark could lead to consumer confusion, i.e. someone buying a "Rclex" watch under the misimpression that it is a Rolex. That's a very dangerous situation, because trademarks are a "defend it or lose it" issue, so company lawyers are like pitbulls in this kind of situation (e.g. The New York Times sent a nastygram to a computer game company that called their newsletter "The New Zork Times.") That situation mostly doesn't apply to Misplaced Pages.

A second way is if the trademark is somehow used as a way to attack the company or put them in a bad light. For example, suppose that one were to write an article about Nestle's in which the logo was positioned in the corner of a picture of a baby that had died from malnutrition or something like that. There are free-speech issues there, and the issue of a right to parody. I recall the EPRI sued some antinuclear group once that was using a parody of Reddy Kilowatt, but I don't remember the outcome. The use of logos or logo parodies in order to attack a company would in most case violate NPOV. Using a decent copy of the current logo, and using it in such a way that it neither promotes nor attacks the company is both prudent (with regards to the possibility of legal action) and NPOV.

This has nothing at all to do with historical logos which are fine and add to the article. The point is just that they should not be in the "lead" position of the article, as they are not the company's current "official portrait."

As for redrawn logos, again the question is "is this a good representation of the logo?" If the redrawing is just cleanup and tidying, I don't see why there would be a problem. The intent is not to require that the logo be obtained directly from an official source. Just that it should look like a good and accurate representation of the logo. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. So we should probably keep historical logos... What do you think, should they be marked as {{logo}}s or as {{historical logo}}s within a new category? Since these logos are not used, they are not trademarks anymore; copyright will also expire one day. This puts them in a different category, doesn't it? (Of coure, since historical logos typically share design elements with the current one, they will probably never become free.) Glimz 16:26, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

another commonsense guideline

This one isn't in the list; could it be added? Logo images should always be surrounded by an image box and be labelled with a caption, to make it clear that the logo is being used as an illustration, not as a logo. Doops | talk 03:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Objection about using low resolution logos

By stating that only using low resoulution version of logos is fair use, I disagree. For example if you print a page containing a low resoultion logo, the result may distort tha logo so much you can't identify it at all. Also implying that resolution has any relevancy to fair use is irrelevant, it's the usage of said image that defines fair use. _→AzaToth 18:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Let's not forget that companies pay millions of dollars a year to plaster their logos over almost anything they can. There's no reason to tie our hands with m:Copyright paranoia when there hasn't been a single complaint about logo use by anyone as far as I know. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

User Pages and Templates vs Articles?

I've made two templates for user pages. Template:Uncyclopedian and Template:H2G2Researcher. Initially they had little logos for the web sites they exist for people to link to. But now people are citing this policy to say that the use of these logos violates Misplaced Pages policy even when the exact same images are used in articles so that User Pages are now more restricted in their content than regular articles. Now I ask you, does that make sense? There must be something I'm fundamentally not getting about copyright law here, or else something really stupid has been going on with how site policy is written. --00:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

U.S. trademark law section

I have added the following section, and it has been reverted away twice without being moved here by someone who apparently thinks it is a major change. In fact, the statutes and case law below predate the creation of this guideline, so this has always been true the entire time this guideline has been in effect. Therefore, I will be replacing it soon. --James S. 15:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

U.S. trademark law

U.S. law protects the use of trademarks by nonowners for purposes of criticism and commentary. First Amendment considerations override any expressive, noncommercial use of trademarks. "The Constitution is not offended when the antidilution statute is applied to prevent a defendant from using a trademark without permission in order to merchandise dissimilar products or services. ... The Constitution does not, however, permit the range of the antidilution statute to encompass the unauthorized use of a trademark in a noncommercial setting such as an editorial or artistic context." (emphasis added) L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Pubs., Inc., 811 F.2d 26, 31, 33 (1st Cir. 1987.)

Similarly, the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 does not apply to the "noncommercial use" of a famous mark. 15 U.S.C. 1125(c)(4)(B). The U.S. Supreme Court has defined "commercial speech" as "speech which ... propose a commercial transaction." Virginia Pharmacy Ed. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 762 (1976.)

The only limit on this right is whether someone might think that the commentary was produced by the trademark owner. "n author certainly would have a First Amendment right to write about the subject of the Boy Scouts and/or Girl Scouts. However, this right is diluted by trademark law insofar as that author cannot present her subject in a manner that confuses or misleads the public into believing, through the use of one or more trademarks, that those organizations have produced or sponsored the work in question." (emphasis added) Girl Scouts of the United States v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., 808 F. Supp. 1112 at 1121, n. 12 (S.D.N.Y. 1992.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrcprm2026 (talk • contribs)

Since trademarks can be modified for non-commercial use, does this still apply, in a practical sense, to Misplaced Pages? Per Jimbo's message here, it seems that, though modification is by no means prevented by copyright law, these images must still be allowed for commercial use on Misplaced Pages. These three precedents seem overemphasized in this guideline, as, generally, these images still can't be used on Misplaced Pages and therefore likely don't mean much. — Rebelguys2 07:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Football club logos

Ed g2s has removed all football club logos from all tournment pages like Royal League 2005-06, UEFA Cup Finals and probably many more. Is this really necesary? Logos are not removed on European Cup and Champions League finals. Is it a reason for this? Arnemann 20:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably. Logos are intended to be used to illustrate the team in question (e.g. on pages about the team itself). While I haven't looked at every edit of his, it looked like the team logos were being used more for decoration and weren't really essential. I would suggest that the team logos on European Cup and Champions League finals be removed as well. JYolkowski // talk 20:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Logos with slogans

I would like the following to be considered for inclusion as a guideline: "Logos that contain corporate slogans should be omitted in favour of equivalent logos that do not." This desire was sparked by reviewing the article Safeway Inc. Previously this article displayed prominently the logo Image:Safeway-logo.gif, which contained the company logo and its slogan, "Ingredients for life." It has since been replaced with Image:Safeway-logo.png, which only contains the visual logo. This additional guideline would stem from a current guideline which states "Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote the company." Kurieeto 17:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Many corporate logos do not include slogans in their logos. If they do, then it is usually a promotional logo that is used only for web or other publications. It may take a bit more work to find a logo without the slogan, but it would be preferable than using the version with the slogan. However, some logos have a slogan as a part their inherit design. In this case, I do not believe we would want to ban or redesign the logo. One example: Image:5ADay_logo.gif should be allowed if this is the only version available to the public. As long the policy statement (as Kurieeto worded it above: "Logos that contain corporate slogans should be omitted in favour of equivalent logos that do not.") does not mean censorship, but a preference of non-slogan logos over those that have them then I don’t see any problem with it. --Adam Clark 02:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the guideline proposed does not mean censorship. It's been a week since the original proposal was made and no other issues have been raised, so I've added this guideline to the list. Kurieeto 23:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Caption guidelines for logos

Currently, the sole guideline regarding captions for logos is: "Usually, the current logo should be the logo presented. When a historical logo is used, the caption should indicate this." User:Doops proposed above that "Logo images should always be surrounded by an image box and be labelled with a caption, to make it clear that the logo is being used as an illustration, not as a logo." I second Doops' idea, on the grounds that captions would remove the chance of logos in articles being interperted as anything other than encyclopedic illustrations. It would also further address the guideline that "Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote the company." Furthermore there seems to have been support for the mandatory captioning of logos back in previous discussions here (Initial discussion and Continued discussion), but I can't pinpoint from those discussions why such a guideline was never implemented. Kurieeto 17:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that a policy requiring that old logo images be “surrounded by an image box and be labeled with a caption” makes perfect sense. Not only does it aid the reader in identifying the image, but it will also help identify the change especially if it was a recent one made by the company. In fact, I would support requiring an image box and caption for virtually all visual aids (logos, photos, diagrams etc...) in articles to help with identification. This is how most other mediums do it and it helps to clarify why the visual aids are included in the first place. Adam Clark 01:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been a week since the original proposal was made and there have been no objections, so I've added this guideline to the list. Kurieeto 23:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The frame looks extremely ugly in Template:Infobox Company. It's annoying to see that this change has been railroaded through on this page and then immediately cited as if it were policy on Microsoft. I object to this requirement. Logos outside of infoboxes should have captions, but inside the infobox it is implied that the logo is the company's current logo, used for illustration. Rhobite 17:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

What's annoying is having one's proposal and work termed "railroading", despite the making of several efforts to invite discussion on the matter. Additionally, the frame was never cited as policy, just as a guideline. Which it was.

As an alternative for consideration in regard to captioning logos in Infoboxes, a caption field could be added to Template:Infobox Company, as is present in Template:Infobox Band and Template:Infobox Celebrity. Kurieeto 17:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I just think it was wrong to modify this guideline after such a short discussion, with only one other person. The header says that "many editors agree with in principle", but I don't think enough Wikipedians have expressed their opinions on the proposal. A caption in the infobox would be a better solution, although I don't think it is necessary for the vast majority of companies. Illustrating a company's logo doesn't violate NPOV or fair use. Rhobite 18:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I added it after one week because no other individuals were coming forward with comments, and 7 days is the timeframe alotted in other venues for discussion, such as at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. You make a valid point about the header though. For now, would you agree to the returning of an edited guideline regarding captioning logos, such as as you said above, "Logos outside of infoboxes should have captions."? Kurieeto 18:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Trademark law

What does everyone think about removing the section on trademark law? I don't think it adds anything to this guideline, for the following reasons:

1. The first paragraph effectively says that we can use logos in article because of fair use, which is redundant with the rest of the guideline. It continues by discussing use in a non-commercial editorial or artistic context. Non-commercial use only images are not allowed on Misplaced Pages, so this guideline has no relevance to what is allowed. "Editorial or artistic context" is the same as fair use, regardless.
2. The second paragraph only discusses non-commercial use. Again, Misplaced Pages explicity forbids the use of this kind of image, so we must fall back on fair use which is already extensively discussed.
3. The third paragraph discusses how we shouldn't use logos to mislead people into thinking that the company has sponsored the work in question. This is Misplaced Pages, and obviously we are steadfastly against using it as a venue for advertisement and the like, so there is no chance of this happening.

I think that adding a few paragraphs of court precedent at the end is simply redundant (discussing fair use), irrelevant (discussing non-commercial use), and solely offers confusion to the masses on Misplaced Pages with no understanding of copyright law. I will be making the changes soon if there are no strong objections. In addition, I am looking at copyediting this page for greater accessibility, namely by dividing that long list of bullet points into subsections — the procedure for using a logo, what to do if there are objections, formatting of the logo, etc., and was wondering if anyone had any suggestions or input. Thanks! — Rebelguys2 20:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Logos in stub templates?

This is an area I'm just not sure on - is a stub template a permissible location for a logo? The stub I'm referring to is: Template:melbourne-rail-stub. Whilst the logo is probably the ideal icon for the template, I'm unsure as to whether it is an allowed use. Looking forward to clarification --Evan C (Talk) 13:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that we can only use a logo "to illustrate the corporation, sports team, or organization in question" (quoted from the template logo template). As long as the stub template is used only on those articles that are about subjects under the same governing entity (company, team, government, ect...) then there shouldn't be a problem. For example, you should be able to use the Oscar Mayer corporate logo on a stub templates that are put on articles about products it produces like Lunchables. Also, check out . Note that uses a {{symbol}} tagged image instead of the {{logo}} tag that we use, but the legal provisions are similar.

As far as your Melbourne rail issue, I'm pretty sure that the use of that logo is fine--after a cursory examination of its use. For design issues, a logo without the slogan would look much better when it is shown that small (and such a logo is preferred in any use--see above discussions). Any other thoughts? --Adam Clark 09:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for that - I've uploaded a sloganless version of the logo, it's a bit clearer too (having been rendered directly from a vector version). I think I'll note on the stub's page that, as a guide, it should only be used on pages relating to Metlink connected services, etc - not on V/Line stations, for example. --Evan C (Talk) 13:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Fair use images are not allowed in templates, or anywhere outside the main article namespace. A company's logo should only really be used on the company's page, and anywhere where the logo is the subject of the text. ed g2s • talk 01:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Bah! OK then - I've replaced it with an icon based on an image I made myself - you can't say that's not permitted! --Evan C (Talk) 04:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If the image you made yourself was a manual copy or derivative of the original logo (in copyright sense) or was confusingly similar to the original logo (in trademark sense), then it is not permitted in templates or on Commons. Try putting your stub category image on Commons and see what they think. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 21:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The image I made myself is a vector artwork of one of our trains - not at all a logo :) --Evan C (Talk) 07:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Resource for logos.

Site with nearly 5000 logos in Adobe Illustrator format. They seem to be copyrighted, but if fair use is being claimed, that shouldn't be an issue, should it? grendel|khan 00:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Taking photos of logos and signs

Hello, I have added a photograph of a logo at Society of Professional Journalists - what do you think about that? How about if we took photos of logos and put them up? So, for example, if we went to the local Safeway, took a photo of its sign, and posted it, it would be a depiction of their logo. The photo is our own work. What are people's thoughts about this? Guroadrunner 12:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

From a copyright point of view: This would not change the fact that we are simply reproducing the logos. A verbatim photograph does not possess the "original creativity" needed to make it an original work. Suppose that I was an artist with a hot new painting on display in my gallery. A visitor walks by, snaps a picture, and makes available high--quality copies to the general public. This would undercut my profits---and courts would be sympathetic to my case. Fair Use is a bit of an exception, but it allows only very narrow permissions. Hope this helps, GChriss 20:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I would consider a logo different than an artistic piece, but I see your point. What are other's thoughts on this? Guroadrunner 19:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the photo would need to exhibit uniqueness - additional creativity or skill. So, if you took the photo taking in the whole building, or the area and supports on which the sign was installed, that would probably be enough to make it a photo of a sign et al, and not just a copy of a logo. Note, however, that I'm unsure if this is entirely accurate under US law (it is under Australian law). --Evan C (Talk) 12:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a sentence at WP:NOR that kind of confuses me on this issue: Misplaced Pages editors have always been encouraged to take photos or draw pictures and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free licence, to illustrate articles. (emphasis added) This doesn't seem to really apply to logos, at least not in current practice. It seems to be more intended for "original works" (such as taking a picture of a traffic jam to illustrate the concept of traffic jam) and not pursuits to obtain images of trademarks like logos. However, even though a photo of a sign like "Welcome to Florida" might not constitute an original work in the context of this discussion, it arguably would from the standpoint of the above sentence. User-made reproductions of logos seem to be in a minor gray area, but I'm reading into this and other things that it is good to use. There's a suggestion at WP:FU that user-made images are actually preferred, which contradicts this page's policy that images from web sites should be used where possible, and in any case doesn't make sense with regard to logos - especially if they're logos displayed off of a screenshot from TV or a computer screen, since that has some disturbing similarities to piracy. (end mindless, confusing, ignorant, pointless, and probably thread-killing rant that has bored everyone to sleep at this point) --Morgan Wick 03:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Boring rant, nah. I am inclinded to agree with the above, as long as you don't zoom in too closely on the logo. Taking a zoomed-in picture of a copyrighted/trademarked roadsign (e.g., McDonalds), not cool. Taking a picture of the nearby road, cars, and sign is just fine. GChriss 18:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

SVG

Can logos be uploaded under fairuse, in SVG? I say this because User:9cds has recently speedy deleted several images I uploaded (I extracted it from a PDF) and told me you can't. BUT there are many popular article (e.g. Microsoft) which have logos which are in SVG. Can or can't they be SVG? - _хот 20:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Resampling the SVG logos into bitmaps and removing the original would be better idea. The quality of the article would remain the same, and we would not be handing out the exact high--resolution logo, something not permitted under fair use. Hope this helps, GChriss 04:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, if the SVG file is of a low-resolution when uploaded surely that satisfies fair use. After all a PNG file can be resized with very little loss of quality using image-editing software. SVG is a far better file format for simple logos, and it's use should be encouraged in my opinion. Alexj2002 09:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

SVG is, by nature, of an infinitely high resolution. It may be mapped to a certain size, but you could blow the logos up and stick them on the side of a garbage truck if you wanted to! This is not possible with PNG - without going into effort in tracing the logo, it will pixellate as soon as you try to increase it in size.

Anyway, only a PNG (or similar) of the approximate size used in the article (an an appropriate size at that - only as necessary) will satisfy the fair use policy. --Evan C (Talk) 11:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well in that case, why is nothing being done about more obvious examples. as I pointed out, Microsoft is in SVG? I agree that an SVG can RESULT in non-fairuse, but I completely disagree that it, in itself, is not fairuse, once its not rendered high-res. -_хот 12:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Resolution is defined as "The detail an image holds. The term applies equally to digital images, film images, and other types of images. Higher resolution means more image detail." (from Image resolution). Therefore a SVG created from a low-resolution PNG file becomes a low-resolution SVG file as no extra detail was added. The fact the size can be changed without distortion is irrelvant because resolution relates to the detail, as opposed to the size. Alexj2002 15:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

But there's a problem with that. If you trace a PNG, the SVG made is always slightly distorted from the original. Therefore you've modified it, which isn't fairuse. I'm talking about where, either the company has made a vector freely available, or one is embedded within a PDF they may have made available (in which case it can be exported using things like Adobe Illustrator). - _хот 15:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but should a vector graphic be freely available, then it would likely be of an equivalent resolution to a PNG file. Thus my previous post (excepting the creation of the image by tracing) is still correct. Alexj2002 15:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

From the guidelines:

Defaced logos or logo parodies should be used with care and not given undue prominence. Parodies of logos can be used under fair use in an article about a parody site or campaign against some aspect of the operations of the company, but in an article about the company itself, a parody is less likely to be as important and less likely to be fair use.

I believe an SVG version could just about fall under this heading. Note: "Parodies of logos can be used under fair use". Yes, it says it's "less likely to be as important and less likely to be fair use" in the main article, but as it is the same as the actual logo, with possibly very minor modifications, I still think it would qualiy as fair use. Also, "not given undue prominence", I think prominence would be due in this case. --Lorian_C 16:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I should've made it clear that I agreed with all that, except the bit about tracing. -_хот 15:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding of the Scalable Vector Graphics format here. SVG files can be described as a collection of patterns that can be rendered at any size/resolution. Restated, the file itself is resolution-less even if it has a default display size. In our example, Misplaced Pages is redistributing an exact copy of the Microsoft logo, which is definitely a copyright no-no: Microsoft does not have a "better" copy than we do, and they may submit a legal take-down request. Even if we were to trace a PNG logo to create a new SVG logo, it would not possess the "original creativity" needed to make it a new work; it is still a reproduction, even if slightly distorted.

Fair use is intentionally tough to justify.

Hope this helps, GChriss 17:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I also listed Image:Microsoft_logotype.svg as a copyright problem, if there are others please let me know. Thanks! GChriss 17:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's trying to make it not fair use. Just some people don't not the fact that it is not "low resolution". Though you make a good point about it beging resolution-less. --Lorian_C 17:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So what? Should we start removing all images that are SVG under fairuse? It should also be noted on the main project page. Shouldn't it? Like where it says:

"Where possible, logos should be uploaded in PNG format. JPEG format should not be used as it is lossy and results in a less professional appearance."

Should it now read:

"Where possible, logos should be uploaded in PNG format. JPEG format should not be used as it is lossy and results in a less professional appearance. SVG should not be used for fairuse logos. Please convert these to a low-resolution PNG" or something like that -_хот 08:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely re-saving an SVG file as a low-resolution PNG will also breach fair use, as it is effectively modifying the original image. Additonally, the text given by Misplaced Pages is "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of logos" Storage of high resolution (if resolution is being defined as the size not detail as it would seem people are doing) is not mentioned so providing the usage is low resolution that should be OK under the current wording.Alexj2002 14:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of the wording change. Converting from SVG into reduced-resolution PNG would not modify the image itself, just change the format it is stored in. (The reverse is generally not true, as PNG-->SVG is technically difficult.) Storage of high resolution images qualifies as "use" from a legal standpoint, and our policy needs to be based in law. Misplaced Pages has limits on what it can host. Thanks again, GChriss 18:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it is possible to have a extremely--high resolution image that is tiny (900 dpi, 1in x 1in, large file), an extremely--high resolution image that is huge (900dpi, 300in x 300 in, huge file), extremely--low resolution image that is tiny (60 dpi, 1in x 1in, GIF--like file), or an extremely--low resolution image that is huge (60dpi, 300in x 300in, large GIF file). SVG is none of the above. GChriss 18:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The dimensions of the image do affect its resolution. An image that's 1x1 will have terrible resolution, while a higher one, say 1000x1000 will be better. But something definitly has to be mentioned on this page (not the talk page obviously) and on the page on fair use. How else are people supposed to know? - _хот 19:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a bitmaped image that is enlarged will lose resolution unless it is resampled. But resolution and size are two independent properties. The way to tell is to find out if the file size increases, indicating no loss of resolution. That doesn't mean that you have a more detailed picture, however. GChriss 20:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

My main point is that although resolution and size are independent of each other, the size can restrict the resolution. Like I said, you can't put much resolution in a 1x1 image -_хот 10:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification on use of sports team logos

This guideline is very well written with respect to corporate logos, but does not adequeately adress sports team logos. I would like to add the following clarification:

Sports team logos may be used in articles or aticle sections where the team is discussed. Discussion of the logo itself is not necesary. However, there must be some discussion of the team represented by the logo. Use of the logo is not allowed in a list unless the list contains discussion of the team.

Support for the above change:

1. We already allow the use of sports team logos on the main team page. As Misplaced Pages expands, new articles are being created on more detailed topics, such as individual team seasons and even historic single sporting events. The team logos should have the same protection on these pages as on the main team page.
2. It is common practice to use both teams' logos when discussing a contest between the two teams (E.g. Sports Illustrated and ESPN and university websites such as this one).
3. Discussion of a team occurs at many places, not just the main page for that team. What we happen to have chosen as the title of the article is irrelevant. The use of the logos can occur wherever the discussion occurs, regardless of the name of the article.
4. For example, using the logos to illustrate a contest between the two teams such as a rivalry between two teams is a perfectly valid fair use justification. (Eg. Bedlam Series) as shown in this version or 2006 Rose Bowl)
   
5. Our policy says that fair use images are allowed when they contribute to the article and when no free alternative is available. By definition, no free alternatives are available for logos.
6. We already make the same allowance for fair use photos. Trademarked logos should be no different.

I believe this is the intent of our current policy - to use fair use images where relevant discussion is occuring, but there is a need to make this clear. Therefore, we should clarify that use of team logos are usable in examples such as the ones above. Johntex\ 18:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Utter rubish. The only needs to be used on the page about the team, where it is of unique significance, or where the logos is of specific relevance to the text, and that relevance is made clear. ed g2s • talk 18:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I respect your right to disagree, but I ask you not to call my proposal "utter rubbish". That is not a very civil thing to say. Hopefully we can have a more productive conversation than that. Thank you, Johntex\ 18:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What is, then, the difference between using logos in this way and using game rating logos in video game infoboxes? I believe now everyone is now trying to justify their own usage (images in lists, album thumbnails in discographies, logos, etc) trying to bypass the policy with consensus. -- ReyBrujo 19:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the discussion on that topic, but off the top of my head I would say that the link you provide shows a logo that is so small as to be unreadable so it probably does not add much to the article. Johntex\ 19:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support this change. The most overwhelming evidence that this is not a fair use violation is the fact that reputable sports news organizations like ESPN and Sports Illustrated do the exact same thing every day. Arguably, we certainly include more in-depth analysis than many of these pages, especially lists like this. Somehow believing that we cannot do what they do everyday is copyright paranoia. — Scm83x 19:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying we couldn't legally get away with it, but to do so is incompatible with our goal of creating a free (as in speech, not beer) encyclopedia (see WP:5P). Jimbo himself has made it abundantly clear that fair use policy needs to be more, not less, restrictive. ed g2s • talk

We would still be more restrictive than US law. The 5 pillars are not violated in anyway. Johntex\ 19:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support this change also, and shake my finger at those who feel the need to be uncivil in this discussion. Their opinions can surely be discounted.Michael Dorosh 19:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• This isn't really the appropriate page for this. This is a guideline, notice, not one of the few pages important enough to attain the status of policy, but there are several people who feel that the proposal violates a policy. Therefore, discussion should occur at the relevant policy's talk page to determine whether this proposal does violate the policy, and preferably to clarify the policy, before anyone suggests it be incorporated into guidelines. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the page you point to, Misplaced Pages talk:Fair use is also just a guideline. I have posted a notice there to this page. This page is the more specific guideling, so I think it is proper that the discussion occur here. Johntex\ 19:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support the concept I believe there should be a more clear use of how Sports Logos are used on Misplaced Pages and agree that the Logo description is geared towards corporate logos and provides no guidance to sports teams. I think the wording is mostly fine, should be negotiable until agreed upon. There should be examples given of appropriate and inappropriate uses. Additional things I would like to see:

1. Limit of one use of a logo per article, with no exceptions -- even if a team plays another 20 times and it would be appropriate to put the logo there, only the first instance should have the logo (I don't claim credit for this idea, Johntex had this idea and posted it elsewhere, but I can't remember where).
2. The size of the logo should be reduced to be no larger than the paragrah used to describe it. This could be used as a rule of thumb, such that, if only one line is written about a team, the logo would have to be so small as to be unpractical for using. Reduction of the image should also occur where possible, and using a full image except on the main article about that team, is always discouraged.
3. The image should appear immediately next to the position in the article where that team is being talked about. An exception to this would be on pages about a specific contest (2006 Rose Bowl for example) where the whole article is generally about two teams, and may be more stylisticlly appropriate to list them at the top of the page. However, if the article were still sufficiently short, the size should be reduced apropriately. Thus, if the 2006 Rose Bowl article were 5 lines long, the images should be no larger than that. --MECU≈talk 19:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It was actually ZScout370 that suggested the limit of one use per article, but I did say I could support that. I am fine with your other suggestions as well. Johntex\ 19:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support as well. It is an oversimplistic and overly-dualistic view to say that this type of use for logos is "purely decorative". The logos are the representation of those sporting teams and/or institutions and their relationship with that sporting activity is the reason for their existence. Since multiple articles reference the activitiy and entity referred to in the logo, I think an overly-restrictive and inaccurate interpretation of Rule 8 is being applied. Just my $.02. I'd also like to reiterate my distaste for the uncivil and rude behavior exhibited by some of the editors who disagree with this position (i.e. threats to block editors). Obviously, in spending so much time worrying about fair use, they neglected to learn that on Misplaced Pages we assume good faith, even when we disagree. -- Masonpatriot 19:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Hell no. The logo should be used exactly once: on the team's article, as a "this is what the team logo looks like" image. Anything else goes against Misplaced Pages's goal to be a free content encyclopedia. --Carnildo 20:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In case of a sports team article - using one logo on a page or 10 logos really makes no difference. Either way, someone who wants to re-use the content without complying with fair use law would need to strip out the logo. Johntex\ 20:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. This vote violates our policy. Bastique▼ _voir 20:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering. --MECU≈talk 14:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments like "See Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering" serve only to inflame a conversation. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering reads, 'Utilization of the word "Wikilawyering" typically has negative connotations, much like the term "meatpuppet"; those utilizing the term should take care that it can be backed up and isn't frivolous.' Your essentially accusing me of wikilawyering, which is bordering on incivility. I recommend you discontinue this line of conversation. Bastique▼ _voir 19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your point of view and apologize that you took it that way. It was and is not my intent to inflame the conversation and agree I should have said more, than simply what I did, so here goes: Specifically, #2 where it reads: "Asserting that technical interpretation of Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express." I think that your steadfastness in upholding the letter of the policy does not therefore uphold the principle that it expresses. I think that you think your interpretation of the policy is the only possible correct interpretation. Thus, comments of yours like "violates our policy" (which, upon re-reading it now, do you mean the policy under discussion, or the no-voting policy, or another one?, for now, I shall continue to assume that you meant this current policy) iterate this letter-of-the-law policy. Further, no policy is beyond change (except the WP:5P, by definition). Thus, even in quoting/citing a policy as a reason is not enough of a reason for maintaining it since with appropriate discussion, the policy could be changed. I'm not saying there isn't a valid point in citing a policy, since it currently states the current status and policy, but in a discussion on whether the policy should be changed, citing the policy's current status is a moot point. I again apologize for my brief, perhaps rude and inciting comment, but again, that was not the intent. Lastly, threats are not needed. --MECU≈talk 20:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Notice that one of the five pillars is "Misplaced Pages is free content". The exact bounds of those policies is of course de facto subject to interpretation by the community where no explicit clarification is given by the Foundation, but the goal in such cases should be to interpret rather than rewrite the policy. This is, in my view as well as presumably in Bastique's, likely against Foundation policy, and therefore should not be instituted. Either way, opposing a proposal for being against policy is not wikilawyering. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe we are attempting to clarify the intrepretation here. If rewriting a policy is needed for clarification, then it should be done. It assume that a policy cannot and should never be open for change is to hold it to such a dogmatic belief that is incorrect. Only thought discussion and challenge (similiar to the scientific method) can a policy be strengthened and upheld as valid and useful. I don't see how adding logos makes the articles, or Misplaced Pages, less free. Anyone can still look for information, we're not suddenly charging for the information, and downstream users are still able to use the information of Misplaced Pages -- with still the restriction that their use should be checked for their own legal status. There no rule that the information in completely here should and must be available in a xerox manner so that anyone who wants to use it can use it without doing their own work on the item(s). Further, my point in wikilawyering is that the view expressed is a purely techical view of the fair use policy, and completely ignores the spirit of the policy. Also, in combination with the assumption that the policies cannot be changed, holding them to the technicallity that they are (in essence) words from Jimbo which much be treated as the one and only possible intrepretation. Even Jimbo allows his ideas and thoughts to not be the final word by saying such things as: (loose quote) I'm on the extreme side of the argument, thus valdating that there are other views, and that his is the exteme on one side, and with no mention that his was is the only way. (Yes, 5P has the rule that is decisions are final, but the comment in question isn't a final decision, it's a comment). --MECU≈talk 14:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. What ESPN and SI do is irrelevant; those are commercial publications and they are not attempting to create free content. We are. Nonfree content -- such as sports team logos -- should be used only when absolutely necessary to illustrate encyclopedic content. Many of the proposed uses above do not qualify as "absolutely necessary". Therefore, including team logos in an article about, e.g., a game between two teams is not appropriate because the logos add nothing to the article. I would be hard-pressed to think of a situation where a team logo should appear on any article other than the article about the team. This proposal fails to comport with Misplaced Pages's primary goal of creating a free-content encyclopedia and must be rejected. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've yet to see a compelling example of where this was necessary, for one thing. And ESPN and Sports Illustrated are involved in complicated licensing schemes with these sports organizations to use their logos—there is no doubt about that. We are not. While I don't think this is much of a legal threat, I don't think it is a good use of copyrighted materials as it seems completely unnecessary. The instances in which teams are identified only by logos is also inappropriate in my mind because of the difficulty that non-sighted users would have in locating such text, and the inability to use a browser's search function to find them. But that is a separate issue, obviously. --Fastfission 21:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support In my opinion it is not a policy or copyright violation to use the logo in tables on the conference pages for teams. The logos represent the team it is hard to believe it is unencyclopedic to include them to demonstrate how a conference is organized as is done on the conference pages.BCV 02:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What does a team logo tell you about the league? ed g2s • talk 13:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It can tell you a lot. It can give you a sense of the svariety and style that exist in a particular league. Take a table listing logos from the NFL as opposed to the short-lived XFL. The NFL logos are, for the most part, simple and classy, while the XFL logos were brash and loud. Compare the two together and it shows just how different the XFL tried to be with their style as opposed to the more dignified nature of the NFL (in comparison, of course). Moreover, the logos give you a sense of variety that exists in one league, like the classy logos of the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees as opposed to the newer logos of the Pittsburgh Pirates, San Diego Padres, and Toronto Blue Jays. Logos are more than just decoration in this respect, and should be used (with responsiblity) throughout Misplaced Pages. Dknights411 22:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Firm Oppose because logos serve their purpose after the first inclusion. Any more is aesthetics, and harder to justify under fair use. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 03:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - what is being discussed here would be multiple logos representing different teams, where each logo is expected to be used only once. Johntex\ 14:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support as above. It's not like sports logos are being littered into the article at random - they actually add some structure and identification to the article in certain circumstances as well. For those arguing that fair use images should only be used when "absolutely neccessary", as you stated Kelly, then half the images on this encyclopedia should be removed. This matter is totally subjective to start off with, and if you really want to argue the point, there are hardly any circumstances where any image is neccesary illustrate something, even though they might HELP with illustrating the topic. The use of team sports logos in the article about the competition/s they participate in should be valid, so let some common sense prevail here. If what you are after is a totally free encylopaedia, then there's a lot of editing to be done, but because this ethic has already been stretched out of its original intentions, then we may as well let a few things like the use of sports logos go. If a profit is not being made by the use of logos and is noone is being made worse off, then what's the problem? --mdmanser 10:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. For all the reasons mentioned above. As long as their is some critical commentary about the team, then the logo should be allowed.--NMajdan•talk 14:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support: I see this more of a trademark issue (although there is certainly some copyright issues, when you're talking logos you must consider trademark law), and I feel using the logo of the team in a way that's not misleading or damaging is fine. The uses of these trademarks in the articles being called into question have been in very respectful and non-trivial manners. In college sports, you can have multiple teams with very, very similar sounding names (ex: USC/USC, Miami University/University of Miami, UAB/Alabama, UTEP/UT-Austin, etc), with the logos it is much easier to differentiate teams in articles regarding their work when you can have the visual aid of their trademark logo/symbol (which is the very reason such logos exist in the first place). Some editors have been so extreme in their attempts to quash college logos that they've removed athletic logos from the article about the very universities they are attached too (sample) --we should not go down this path. For these reasons I firmly support this proposal. --Bobak 17:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support: I think too much of a blanket decision was made here. For example, on the Mid American Conference page, now that the logos of each team are gone, 9 of the 12 member schools' logos are now orphaned. The only place the logo was being used was on the conference article, as most schools only have a "university" article, not a specific "athletic team" article. That's why I think the "logo gallery" form was being used only on college athletic conference pages, and not on NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. pages. Because of this fact, I strongly urge the proponenents of "fair use" to reevaluate their hasty, blanket decision.--X96lee15 05:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • We can't use fair use to fill in the gaps of our coverage. If the team doesn't have its own page, expand the athletics section on the university page, and use it there - where it is of considerable more relevance. ed g2s • talk 15:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I've already gotten involved with this issue back when I used NBA logos on the individual NBA seasons article, not just current, but historical logos too. My justification there was that the logos added depth into the evolution of the league, and were not just "Decoration" as Ed had put it (and since they were no images in the article in the first place, I thought that logos were the only alternative). IMHO, Logos DO add depth to articles, even though they are fair use. And if an IMAGE (fair use or not) can be utilized to add depth to an article, then that image should be used. Dknights411 16:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as against Foundation policy, namely that Misplaced Pages should be as free as possible. See, e.g., Jimbo's recent comment that he thinks "We are much better off to have no photo than to have a fair use or even 'wikipedia only' photo" for a celebrity page. If the Foundation clarifies that this is something the community can decide, I will consider the merits of the issue, but until then I view them as irrelevant. We're on Misplaced Pages, and it would be quite unjust of us to ignore the site owners' rules while we're here. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In the same statement where Jimbo made the above comment, he also admits that his personal view is "at the extreme end of the spectrum" and that it is not policy. While we all respect Jimbo, we don't have to follow his personal opinion when he has speaking for himself and not making policy. He also says "We are powerful enough now that we can insist on , and get it, from just about any celebrity,..." Therefore, it is clear his motivation (at least in part) is that holding back on using fair use images may somehow encourage more free images to become available. That can't happen here. The cases are not comparable because there is no such thing as a free alternative to a logo. Johntex\ 22:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: If the logo itself is not discussed, it is a clear violation of point 8 of the Misplaced Pages fair-use policy. Point 3 of the policy would also likely be violated. —Bkell (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support: I feel the logos are needed.--Josh 04:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  Obviously, necessity is important to the discussion. However, it would be more important to explain just why the logos are needed. Bastique▼ _voir 18:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Bastique, although I don't see how this vote can have more than one valid outcome. Mackensen (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. A vote can overturn Foundation policy? Adam Bishop 18:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  Who says it can't? --MECU≈talk 18:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  WP:POLICY:

  While we try to respect consensus, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, and its governance can be inconsistent.
  Hence there is disagreement between those who believe rules should be explicitly stated and those who feel that written rules are inherently inadequate to cover every possible variation of problematic or disruptive behavior.

  Also note the first sentence in the following paragraph, In either case, a user who acts against the spirit of our written policies may be reprimanded, even if technically no rule has been violated.

  Sorry, but your previous comment is making me think you are just trying to make a point. If you do want to change policies, discuss at the correct places. Since you are questioning the Fair use policy, then create an amendment, call for consensus, explain your position, and see if the community agrees. All these polls about images in lists, logos, etc, won't change the Fair use policy. Note that this is a guideline, while the Fair use criteria is a policy. -- ReyBrujo 18:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  I am not trying to make a point, I'm discussion the issue and attempting to refute arguments of the opposition. Further, that is exactally what this discussion and "vote" is: an attempt to clarify the Fair Use as applicable to Sports Logos, since the logo discussion given is more directed towards corporations. While people are "voting" to show their stance, I think nothing would be done unless there is consensus. I still don't see in the examples you gave where it says the policies can't be changed. The fact that you suggested I should create an admendment signifies that policies can change. Lastly, I doubt I could be considered disruptive to Misplaced Pages, since I'm the one pushing this issue through the dispute resolution process and requested the mediation and therefore pushing this issue that had grown stagnant to attempt to a resolve. --MECU≈talk 04:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, it can be modified by creating an amendment at the correct place. This is not the right place. If you want to include in the guideline a point where every article about a logo should have a written description of it (since not all browsers can display the image), this is the right place. However, if you want to discuss usage of the logo which can be contested because the Fair use criteria clashes with what it is being discussed, you first need to solve that clash. Had this poll ended 20-0 supporting the logos, the result could be considered void because there is still a policy that forbides that. -- ReyBrujo 04:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  One more thing, on the WP:POLICY page you referenced: Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Amendments to a guideline should be discussed.... --MECU≈talk 04:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  Guidelines, not policies. Fair use criteria is a policy. -- ReyBrujo 04:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, guidelines. If you look at what this is attempting to modify above, it is the guideline on how to use logos on WP. Nonetheless, policies can be modified as well, since the WP:POLICY page also states: One should not generally edit policy without seeking consensus first. Thus, editing (chainging) a policy is valid as well (with consensus). --MECU≈talk 14:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  A last time: by modifying this guideline the way people want, it is going against an established policy. That is not correct. Yes, policies can be modified. But you need to modify the Fair use policy from there, not from here. What I see is that people are modifying a guideline where they know they have support to create a loophole, instead of addressing directly the "root of the problem" (that the current Fair use criteria may be draconian). The line However, there must be some discussion of the team represented by the logo. is as vague as the Fair use criteria everyone bashes ("I am discussing the score of the match, who made the goals and when the game was played! That is enough to justify the logo usage!") -- ReyBrujo 18:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - if you want to work in an encyclopedia which ignores free-content, you are welcome to fork Misplaced Pages and start with a different set of principles. However, the Foundation drives what we do over here. (ESkog) 18:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose this change per above oppose rational and my RfPP comment. I'd rather not claim "fair use" solely to decorate charts on pages.Voice-of-All 04:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support, to the extent that this really just codifies existing practice. The thing to keep in mind is that trademark, not copyright, is the most important issue here. In many/most cases, the logos themselves are old enough or generic enough that copyright isn't an issue. Trademark, however, is, and as long as we aren't printing Misplaced Pages articles on t-shirts, I don't think we're infringing on anyone's trademarks. At any rate, I would go further and say that I think we ought to have our own SVG copies of logos where we can, not only because they look better, but also because I'm never comfortable with the idea of just taking an image from some website and using it. It may be legal, but it's better to avoid it. BigDT 18:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • CONFUSION Is there some compelling need to decide to change what is a common practice on Misplaced Pages? Did the schools or their licenising organizations challenge this practice? Is someone else upset by this practice, and why? Why fix something that is not broken? I agree with BigDT that the issue is primarily one trademark law (although the grpahic designs may also, sometimes, be protected under copyright law) and that is where we need to focus the discussion. But, until someone can clarify why we need to make some sort of change then why make any change at all? 68.66.15.194 18:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Very, very few logos have remained unchanged since 1923, I think you'll find. The issue is copyright and copyright alone. Trademark is immaterial to Misplaced Pages articles since, as you say, we aren't printing up articles on T-shirts. If it could be specifically demonstrated that any particular logo is free of copyright, then this issue is obviously irrelevant, but we aren't discussing such a case. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose There is nothing special about sports logos, as far as I can tell this proposal seems to exist only as an attempt to make an exception to permit such uses as decoration. No matter what the legal position of the images are they may not be used as decorations. --140.247.244.14 06:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support - How the heck is an infobox showing each conference member's logo ONE TIME, as was used in each NCAA conference article, a "decoration"? That argument is frivolous, to say the least, as it relates to this discussion. -- CollegeSportsGuy 08:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion without bullet formatting and bolding

It seems to me that this is an attempt to make sports team logos exempt from Misplaced Pages:Fair use criteria numbers three and eight. I've heard a number of assertions that the use isn't "decorative". If it isn't, I have a hard time imagining what people think that means -- no one has suggested using unfree content as wallpaper. The best argument seems to be the "similar names" one, which seems to be forgetting that we can use hypertext. Regardless, this argument seems to be unresolvable because it has become an argument about the definition of a word instead of a discussion informed by the spirit of the policy. Further, criteria number three is part of the policy, and no compelling reason to make sports team logos a special case has been presented. Instead there seems to be a focus on the idea of legal risk, completely ignoring the "Misplaced Pages is a project to give away a free reusable encyclopedia" position that all of our policies are written from. This is a founding issue, and attempting to vote it away on a guideline page so that articles about sporting events can look more like Sports Illustrated seems to be missing the point of what we're doing here. Individual editors may not be interested in the free culture movement basis of Misplaced Pages, but they shouldn't imagine that it can be voted away. Jkelly 20:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I see this not as an opportunity to change any policy or guideline, but to clarify what our existing policy and guidelines actually mean. I firmly believe that no current policy prohibits this use of the logos. You mention point 3 of Misplaced Pages:Fair use criteria, and I'm glad you do. The text of that says "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible..." Clearly, we could have zero copyrighted work if we want to, yet we choose not to go to that extreme. Therefore, we are discussing the matter here to clarify the proper amount of usage in this particular case. There has been a suggestion here that we use each logo only once per page, and I've indicated that I personally would be fine with that compromise. As for WP:5P, it only says that we are distributing content under the GFDL. This discussion does nothing to change that. WP:5P also says there are no firm rules besides WP:5P. Therefore, we are quite free to discuss this issue in order to clarify the guideline. Johntex\ 21:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Another way to look at is as an attempt to define the line between "decorative" use and "illustrative" use. For example, on league pages, is the use of team logos decorative or illustrative? I don't think it's unambiguously one way or the other. Powers 13:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I just want to voice that it is highly uncivil and rude that Ed g2s has seen fit to delete all the gallerys we are talking about while this discussion is ongoing. It only serves to unnecessarily aggravate the situation while reasonable people discuss this. -- Masonpatriot 14:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"In the case of any dispute, the burden of proof is on the person who wishes to include the logo." ed g2s • talk 16:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That is why in many cases the logos had already been discussed on the article Talk pages, but you (in many cases) chose not to add to that discussion. Therefore, we have brought the discussion here. Johntex\ 16:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, What it really boils down to here is that Misplaced Pages's fair use policy is too ambiguous, and opens the door for differing interpretations of the guidelines. But then again, the whole concept of "Fair Use" is ambiguous in of itself, and THAT'S where the problem lies. While I do understand Misplaced Pages's need to protect itself, I can not begin to comprehend why so many here are letting vague guidelines rule Misplaced Pages so strictly. Take for example the NBA seasons article which I did. Every season had the team's logo that they used from that season, much like what the World Cup pages did. These logos not only visually identify a team, they were also THE indicator of the evolution of the league from the 50s into today. With these logos gone, how are we supposed to show this type of evolution? Moreover, as Johntex had previously said, since there are no possible free alternative to logos, than it is OK to use logos to visually represent a team, like how flags represent countries in World Cup articles. In this case, it isn't "decoration", but it is a way to significantly deepen an article where a text-only article falls just short of.

Now I mean this out of the most respect, since I am pretty much still a novice around some of you older editors, but those of you opposing need to seriously lighten up, including you Ed. Fair Use ISN'T a static law that MUST be applied horizontaly. There are just too many grey areas with Fair Use (sports logos being one of them) to make decisions by the book, to the letter. For this reason, Fair Use MUST be expanded to recognize this delima. Dknights411 03:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I too am astounded at the users here who sound more conservative than most lawyers. This quote was beyond me: "No matter what the legal position of the images are they may not be used as decorations." It's because of odd, inadvertant results like that quote that we make changes in policy, right? --Bobak 18:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"The primary goal of Misplaced Pages's fair use policy is to protect our mission of producing and distributing free content which is perpetually free for unlimited distribution, modification, and application for all users and in all mediums." not "to protect us from legal action". Any of the proposed relaxations of our policy would be contrary to this goal. "the authors of the English Misplaced Pages have decided to permit a limited compromise" (emphasis mine) in that "we must permit some non-free material for critical commentary". Using logos everytime you mention a team because its useful and legal is clearly not part of this compromise. ed g2s • talk 02:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

But if it's legal, who cares? Why should we hold ourselves from legal content? --MECU≈talk 02:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO Ed, it sounds like your too preoccupied about upholding Misplaced Pages's current guidelines to the point where any suggestions for changes and/or improvements are immediatly shot down and dismissed. This reluctance of someone to even entertain the idea of a change of policy is something that I am having a hard time to believe. I understand that you are trying to uphold Misplaced Pages's founding policy in order to provide a "Free content" resource, but I also believe that THAT resource should be given the chance to realize its full potential. And the only way to achieve that goal is to listen to some new ideas, and make sure they do not fall onto deaf's ears. The "My way (or wiki way) or the highway" approach is NOT the right way to go about business here. I'm sorry to say this, but I expected Misplaced Pages's administrators to be more inviting than this. Dknights411 03:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"Why should we hold ourselves from legal content?" - because our primary goal is produce free re-usable content. If you really think our policy is/should be "if its legal and we have a use for it, then its okay" then all I can say is that that is not our policy, it never has been our policy, and it never will be our policy. If you think by holding these discussion you will change the policy in that way, that you have severly underestimated the importance of Misplaced Pages's third pillar. ed g2s • talk 03:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am fully aware of Misplaced Pages's founding principles, and I respect them. However, it seems that you do not understand the point Mecu was trying to make. If the ONLY reason as to why the use of fair use images is limited here was due to legal concerns, then I would understand. However, if those legal concerns do not exist, then it seems a bit foolish to continue limiting the use of these images. Misplaced Pages's goal is, IMHO, MORE than to provide free content. Misplaced Pages is here to provide the world with a first-rate online encyclopedia. If there are no legal boundaries preventing improvements to Misplaced Pages, then those improvements can and should be made, and if possible, encouraged to give this website a chance to flourish. Limiting wikipedia to the guidelines, and closing the opportunity for change like this is severly hamparing Misplaced Pages, not only as a website, but as a community. How can we help to make Misplaced Pages better if we get denied the opportunity to at least DISCUSS it? I realize that this IS the discusion, but there hasn't been much of those opposing this change except "It's against Fair Use policy", or "It's not Misplaced Pages's principle". They're interpretation of this seems to be absolute, and that CAN not and MUST not be the case. That's what I find completly wrong with this whole issue. Dknights411 13:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Enough

We talked about this extensively at Wikimania. The logo galleries are not acceptable. You are all hereby informed that any admin may block any editor who reverts an edit removing a gallery of team logos from a sports league, provided that the edit removing the gallery clearly indicates in its edit summary that the use of logo galleries in sports league is prohibited by Misplaced Pages policy. I will personally back up any admin who ends up in a dispute arising as a result of this, as will any number of other admins. This has gone on too long; it ends now. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What about determining consensus? Shouldn't we let the dispute resolution process assist the in solving the isssue? Who (or by what) gives you the power to decide this issue in it's finality? Shouldn't all issues (except 5P) be open for discussion or change? I further think your comments violate WP:NOT (battleground: intimidate) and WP:POINT (prevent discussion). --MECU≈talk 14:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, sorry Mecu. God has spoken.

Seriously, I didn't even know we were talking about galleries. We're talking about including team logos where the team is receiving a article-critical commentary.--NMajdan•talk 14:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the sarcasm is helpful. Some of us were talking about logo galleries (or, apparently, other collections of logos whether in a gallery or not); others were talking about the situation you identified. All the more reason to have an actual policy rather than a statement from Kelly Martin that "Yeah, we all talked about this without you guys and you're all wrong. Thanks." Powers 14:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. This Misplaced Pages oligarchy is seriously leaving a bad taste in my mouth. Misplaced Pages is a group project (EVERYONE participates and opines for a consensus), not an oligarchial project (What we say goes, and everyone else is wrong). This is NOT Misplaced Pages. Dknights411 14:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This is surprisingly heavy-handed and does seem to have circumvented any attempt at garnering consensus on Misplaced Pages (an in-person gathering of a limited number of people hardly seems the most appropriate forum). If this is to be the new policy, though, it needs to be specified as one, rather than hidden on a talk page somewhere. Powers 14:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There has been an extensive discussion. The sides hve been drawn, and the arguments made. I have now formulated a policy as a result of the discussion. You may continue the discussion if you wish, but the policy is now made, and will be enforced. Feel free to make a note of this policy on whatever policy page you feel is appropriate. Policy pages are descriptive, not prescriptive, and the fact that a policy does not appear on any policy page does not in any way deprive it of policy status.

Note that I limited my comments to the gallery issue. I've not reviewed the critical-commentary discussion enough to be satisfied that a policy should flow from that. Maybe later.

Misplaced Pages is not an oligarchy. It is also not a loudocracy. You may not prevent changes in policy simply by yelling loudly every time someone proposes one. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)