Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Historical logos in galleries

Discussion

In addition to the arguments presented on the main page, I also argue:

• In the specific case of television stations, television is a visual medium, and many stations often have little meaningful history outside of their own changing on-air identities.
• Fair use logo images comply with U.S. copyright law as they are only being used for informational and educational purposes, and such use does not compete with the logo owner and does not decrease the value of the copyright to the logo owner.
• Logo owners have not complained about the use of their logos in galleries in Wikipedia or anywhere else that I am aware of, such as here [1], here [2], here [3] or here [4].
• Interestingly, I just discovered that the German Wikipedia, which bans fair use images, claims that the NBC logo and the ABC logo are in the public domain! However, I don't read German so I'm not sure if they are relying on something unique in German law.

DHowell 04:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Logos can be used in articles if there is discussion of those logos to justify a fair use claim. Whether there is one or many per article does not matter. Whehter they are in a gallery or not does not matter. What matters is that there is substantial discussion about each logo. Johntex\^talk 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, current fair use criteria allows logos to be used to identify without discussion of the logo itself. Are you suggesting that, for example, the H & R Block logo itself must be discussed in order for it to be included in the H & R Block article? Also, how much discussion is "substantial discussion"? Is a sentence caption below the logo within the gallery sufficient? Would the logo descriptions I added in KRIV-TV be sufficient to allow a gallery to be used on that page? DHowell 05:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Unlike many people in this discussion from WP:TVS, I have no strong feelings for or against logo galleries. To me, they neither enhance nor detract from the article. Having said that, what sets this issue apart from standard logo fair use issues is the fact that the logos in question here are historical, i.e., they are no longer in use, and therefore, should not present a risk of lost revenue to the copyright holder. Stanford University Library has published results of actual fair use cases [5]. The last case under text cases is instructive: Larry Flynt had disparaged Rev. Jerry Falwell in his magazine. Falwell made several hundred thousand copies of that page from Flynt's magazine and distributed them for fund-raising purposes. That would seem to be a textbook violation of fair use standards, but it was not. Falwell distributed substantial copies of Flynt's work, but because they were part of an off-the-market magazine, the courts ruled that Falwell did not jeopardize Flynt's ability to generate revenue. Although the case cited was for text while logos are pictoral, I believe that the principle is the same: historical logos are like back-issue magazines - they are not current, are not being used in current marketing, and are not likely to be used here in a manner that would jeopardize revenue for the copyright holder. Furthermore, because Wikipedia is not-for-profit, there is less chance that we would run afoul of copyright laws. dhett 09:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no pressing reason to violate existing Wikipedia policy on the matter. They don't identify specific points in the article, and multiple images are not needed to identify the subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The goal of this discussion is not to convince anyone to violate any Wikipedia policy, but rather to try to clarify the application of this policy. Some contend that galleries of fair use images violate FUCs #3 and #8; others, including myself, don't believe that the galleries violate those criteria. In your 13 October comments in WT:TVS you state (and I'm paraphrasing) that the prohibition of galleries of fair use images has been a part of WP:NOT for a long time. I cannot find such a prohibition - the closest thing to such is in the prohbition of mere collections of images (#4) and I don't believe that this is violated either, as long as the logos have some commentary on them, usually a caption with the image. Nowhere does it say that the commentary must be signficant. I'm not advocating logo galleries; as I said before, I don't really care either way, but I'm trying very hard to understand your reasoning behind what seems to me to be a hard-line interpretation of policy, which BTW, I truly assume you're making in good faith. dhett 17:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think they're legally on safe ground (per the Grateful Dead poster case, if nothing else), because by placing the thumbnails of the logos in relationship to one another, and by labelling them with informative captions, a historical and informative context has been created that amounts to a transformative, educational use. Such a gallery is itself a "discussion" and amounts to commentary in a very meaningful sense, because it explains through chronological ordering and juxtaposition how the logo has changed over time, in a way that text alone cannot. As to whether Wikipedia policy should nevertheless prohibit such galleries, I can't imagine why it should. The only reasons for not allowing fair use images on Wikipedia articles are 1) it fails to actually qualify as fair use based on established law, or 2) its use would supplant free content, or discourage the production of free content. Neither applies here. Postdlf 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that legality is only partially relevant. Wikipedia's policy on fair-use is stricter than the law requires. I took a look at KTLA and found that none of the images in the gallery have a detailed fair-use rationale on the image page. As such, all should be marked for speedy deletion. With a detailed fair-use rationale that explains why it is important to display these logos and how this adds meaningfully to the article, they could possibly stay. I simply do not believe that they are adding meaningfully to the article, however. Why is it relevant what the logo looked like in 1978? Unless it is specifically relevant, the images are in violation of WP:FU. Now, it would be relevant to display, say, a period logo which is now considered rascist, attached to a paragraph which discusses how the logo used to be rascist but was later changed due to public outcry. Such is obviously not the case here, I'm using it as an example where it would be relevant to include an old logo. --Yamla 16:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Why would you mark images for speedy deletion when their lack of a fair use rationale can be conceivably easily fixed? Take the effort you would have used to tag the articles to instead fix it. The rationale would be the same for each one, something like: "This is a low resolution screenshot of a station identification logo, used in an article on that station to illustrate how the station has identified itself historically and how the logos have changed over time." All you'd have to do is change the variable of the specific article name (see snowclone). You're welcome to your opinion that they aren't adding meaningfully to the article, but I think they are, as I've explained above. As their legality is not in serious dispute, all we have is a difference in editorial judgment, which should not be resolved as a matter of strongarm policy enforcement. Discuss it on each respective article's talk page to assess whether the article's editors believe it to be trivia or significant. Using the heavyhanded tactics of deletion tagging is simply unnecessary. Postdlf 16:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, a fair-use rationale cannot be provided for these images as I do not believe they add meaningfully to the article. Thus, I cannot fix the images by providing such a rationale. Given that, though, the appropriate step is to request that someone else provide the rationale, probably the uploader. The standard way to do this is to mark the images as missing the mandatory rationale and copy-and-paste the templated warning to the uploader's discussion page. In any case, I have left the images unmarked because this very page is discussing their relevance and I believe deletion of the images in one week would be premature at this point. --Yamla 18:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Explanations as to why the logo historical overviews are not in violation of Wikipedia policy (to the extent that our policy deviates from legal requirements) were set forth by members of the relevant WikiProject at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_4. My conclusions comport with those explanations, and in any event, I would defer to the project members as to what is meaningful on those topics that I have less experience with. Could you perhaps explain why, based on your own experience editing television station articles and understanding of that subject matter, changes in the station's logo/station identification is not a meaningful topic to document?

In any event, even assuming that these do not technically comply with Wikipedia policy even though they are legally permissible, as these do not supplant free content as a replaceable image would, why shouldn't that policy be changed? What benefit would be achieved by removing these? Postdlf 19:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the position taken by those opposing galleries of these logos is that they cannot be justified because they are not the subject of discussion in the article. (Note: There is a distinction between the TV station itself and its logos.) However, in such a case, it would also be warranted to delete current logos of TV stations if the logos were not the subject of discussion in the article. Thus, I think there is no prima facie reason not to permit the display of historical logos.
Whether to display them in a gallery, however, is another issue. It sets a very bad precedent if we allow the display of fair use pictures in a gallery, mainly because this greatly lowers the bar of critical commentary. Under normal circumstances (where a fair use picture is placed inline in the article text), the image would contribute more to the article because it would likely be placed in context with a discussion relevant to the image (and vice-versa - the image would be relevant to the text). Galleries are essentially standalone, and thus are more likely to create a situation where fair use images are not really contributing much, if anything, to the article.
My ideal solution would be to consider historical discussion of a TV station as a reasonable proxy for discussion of its historical logos. (After all, it is acceptable to use the current Yahoo logo in Yahoo! even though we don't discuss it at all.) The historical logo(s) of a TV station, or any organisation in general, would be placed in better context and integrated better into the article. This isn't just good copyright policy (it's actually doubtful that we'd be sued for our usage of old logos), good copyleft policy (we're promoting more reasonable use of uncopylefted material) - it's also good writing. Galleries should be avoided in articles. We're not the Commons - we're an encyclopaedia. We should place images in the text, where they can more effectively convey and reinforce the information in the article. Johnleemk | Talk 08:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I had begun placing historically relevant logos within the text discussing the history of the station at that time, but my efforts were reverted wihout explanation, and the reverting party never responded to my query. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you link to an example? DHowell 23:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's me moving an image into articlespace, with commentary on the logo. Here's user:AdamDeanHall reverting the change the next day without explanation. Here's me asking for clarification on why. You can see by his October contributions he never responded. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

What about the point made by User:Postdlf above that the galleries themselves constitute "discussion" and "commentary" by juxtaposing the images in a way that shows how the logo changed over time, especially when accompanied by captions on each image? A de facto consensus has been established by many WP:TVS editors, which is that logo galleries are the preferred way to present this information. Since you seem to acknowledge that we are not in any legal trouble by using these images in this way, your argument boils down to whether the galleries are "reasonable" or promote "good writing", both which are matters of editorial judgement, which should be exercised by a consensus of people involved in the project, not dictated by a small minority of administrators (or in this case one administrator, with tacit support from a couple of others). Is the present WWOR with the logos interspersed in the History section prefereable to the logo gallery in the WWOR article as of November 1? I prefer the gallery, as to me the text/image combination looks cluttered (also, it is apparent from this example that fewer images can be reasonably presented within the text).

But in this case, the administrator is not just making an editorial judgment about how the information should be presented, but removing the information outright, in the name of policy enforcement. Information which I, as a user, not just an editor, have found useful and encyclopedic. This, in my opinion, is lowering the quality of this encyclopedia with no comparable benefit. Even if policy did indeed prohibit these galleries, WP:IAR says, "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them". Unfortunately, it is impossible it ignore a rule when it is being vigoroulsy enforced by an administrator. The thing that is frustrating me is that the work that many editors over the last few years have contributed to this project in finding these old logos is being eliminated in a few short months, and I feel helpless to do anything about it. Even if I agreed with the premise that logos should be in the text instead of in galleries, WP:TVS is just currently too understaffed, and I just personally don't have the time to devote to this project, to be able to restore these logos that have been systematically deleted. DHowell 23:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A de facto consensus that images constitute commentary on themselves doesn't seem to meet the standard set in WP:FUC that images need to identify subjects discussed in the article or be themselves significant subjects of commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If it doesn't meet the standard, then the language of the standard simply needs to be changed, because neither of the relevant WP policy needs are served by excluding these: 1) there is no legal problem, if done properly, and 2) using these does not inhibit the creation of free images. Nothing would be achieved outside of rote, empty compliance, which is a poor reason to delete content. Postdlf 17:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"Images consist, in and of themselves, sufficient commentary to justify the inclusion of that image" is a standard that allows for infinite fair-use images to be used in any page anywhere, whereever relevant. That's not the intent of WP:FUC; it's not even the letter of WP:FUC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No one said that the images "in and of themselves" were commentary. What is commentary is the chronological ordering of the images, with explanatory captions to source the time and period of usage, to show how the station has self-identified at those different points in history, and how the logo has changed over time. Postdlf 16:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I think you've already lost the rationale for deleting the images. They don't pose a copyright violation hazard, so they don't jeopardize Wikipedia's ability to be freely distributed, which was your contention at the beginning of this discussion over two months ago in WT:TVS. What we seem to have here is an impasse over whether or not the images identify the subjects discussed in the article or be significant subjects of commentary. In either case, the articles can be modified to bring the images into compliance with your interpretation of WP:FUC, which in my opinion, is not an unreasonable interpretation. That being the case, then I see no good-faith rationale for deleting the images. Do you? dhett 01:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If they aren't significant subjects of commentary or identifying specific subjects of discussion, they need to be deleted. That is the standard of inclusion or deletion. WP:FUC is long-standing, stable, and a crucial part of making this a free encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, but what I'm saying is that rather than deleting the images, wouldn't it be better just to bring the articles into compliance? dhett 09:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Oftentimes it's impossible to fix the article, save to remove the images about which nothing can be said. (Additionally, images can't just hang around until someone finds a way to make them useful; cramming an image somewhere it doesn't fit shouldn't save it from the {{orfud}} axe.) However, image undeletion was implemented quite a while ago; if I delete a gallery, and you can find sourced commentary to support any image I've deleted, I'll undelete it and congratulate you to boot. Circle 7 logo, for example, should have several images; it's talking about the evolution of a logo, and needs multiple examples to show this evolution.

This isn't some fair-use image hate crusade. I'm not some hippy granola free content nut. (I will buy the first round for any hippy granola free content nut who wants to track me down and confront me for that, though.) There's just a line, IMO a clear-cut one, between images that are being used correctly and images that are being used incorrectly. The latter create problems, and it's an admin's duty to do what needs to be done to alleviate those problems. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't accuse you in acting in bad faith; I'm just trying to understand what problems the fair use image galleries cause, and why deletion is the only acceptable method of dealing with those "problems". We've already established that having the images doesn't jeopardize the ability to redistribute Wikipedia freely, nor does it violate copyright law, and your opinion that they violate WP:FUC is not consensus; even if it were, IMO it doesn't rise to the level of a "problem" that needs a drastic solution such as deletion. You've made a few judgment calls here — "it's impossible to fix an article", "images about which nothing can be said", "someone finds a way to make them useful" — which seem presumptuous to me. Also, you now say that a fair-use image requires sourced commentary. I'm not sure if you're referring to the source citation on the image's own page, or if you're now saying that using the image in an article requires sourced commentary in the article. If the former, then that's never been in dispute, although I believe that a request for source on the contributor's talk page would be the best first step, assuming that the contributor is registered. If the latter, then that's a new requirement, and I would ask you to please cite which Wikipedia policy requires "sourced" commentary for fair-use images. dhett 17:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It does jeopardize the ability to redistribute Wikipedia's content. Additionally, I see a lot of non-expert legal commentary; I don't see any reason to hew to WP:FUC, which is backed by Brad Patrick, Wikipedia's lawyer speaking in an official function. In any event, WP:FUC is stable, well-established, and firmly supported by Jimbo and the Board. If you want to make it possible to use fair-use images outside of the specific uses outlined in FUC #3 and #8, then begin the uphill battle to change the fair-use rules here on Wikipedia.

Useful is narrowly construed; if someone adds some text to the article discussing the image itself or describing a concept the image must illustrate, then the image is useful. Otherwise, it's not. "Usable" would probably be more precise.

Sourced commentary is as opposed to unsourced personal analysis of the images. For example, someone could add some sentences describing the logos of their local low-power TV station; but OR or other unsourced waffle doesn't justify the use of a fair-use image; that should probably be removed along with the image. Unsourced commentary is due to be sourced or removed anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The dates that each logo was in use should be sourced, yes, so we know it actually represents what it purports to. The captions can further point out what changed from logo to logo, but that's going to be self-evident from the images. Postdlf 16:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean a one-sentence caption or a note when the logo was used. There needs to be actual commentary on the logo itself, sourced to some reliable source. If there's no commentary in reliable sources, it's not important enough that we need a fair-use image to illustrate it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Using that standard, the logo used in the station infobox would also be in violation, then. In fact, any fair use logo that has no reliably sourced commentary should be deleted. dhett 06:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That single image is kosher because it identifies the whole article. The fewest images you need to identify an entire article is one image. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

My answers to User:A Man In Black's comments above

First of all, you are misreading FUC#8 when you say that the images must be deleted "if they aren't significant subjects of commentary or identifying specific subjects of discussion." The only requirement of FUC #8 is that they "contribute significantly to the article" and "not serve a purely decorative purpose." Identification and illustration of textual commentary are examples (hence the e.g.) of significant contribution, but are not the only way that an image can contribute significantly. In this case, historical logos contribute significantly to an article about the subject the logos represent, especially one about a visual and ever-changing medium such as television.

Secondly, your reliance on FUC #3 is misplaced. If the purpose of including the logo images was merely identification, then perhaps one image would be sufficient in most cases. (Although this argument could be taken to its logical extreme: zero images are sufficient to identify the station, since a station can be identified merely by its call letters). However, the purpose here is not just to identify, it is to document the history of the station's branding and identity over its lifetime. This encyclopedic purpose cannot be accomplished with a single image.

Third, your insistance that historical logo images may not be used without "significant" "sourced commentary" also does not comport with WP:OR. To quote from this policy:

Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.

In the vast majority of the cases on WP:TVS, the source for the logo is the television station itself, i.e. a primary source. Any commentary (even a single sentence) which is an accurate verifiable description of the logo can be added without the necessity for any other "reliable sources". There isn't (execpt in very rare cases) controversy about what logos television stations used at various times, and "no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" are being made, so there is no need to insist on independent reliable sources.

Additionally, I fail to see any way in which the inclusion of these logos "jeopardize the ability to redistribute Wikipedia's content". For the most part, these are American TV station logos which are validly used under American fair use law. I believe that there is zero chance that an American TV station is going to be suing some content reuser in some foreign country under a more restrictive "fair dealing" law for such a logo used in an encylopedic context (and very little chance they would be sued for using them in any other context, that didn't also violate appropriate trademark law).

Finally, your attempted appeals to authority, citing User:Brad Patrick, User:Jimbo Wales, and the Wikimedia Foundation carry no weight, as none of these people or entities have ever spoken about this specific issue. Your interpretation of policy is not theirs, it is yours alone, and even people who I would think might agree with you haven't joined your campaign to rid Wikipedia of historical TV logos. If Brad or Jimbo or anyone else wants to chime in on this issue, they are welcome to do that themselves. Mind you, even their opinion would count exactly as much as anyone else's, unless they were to issue an edict in their official capacity. DHowell 05:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose that, if we introduce the logo galleries back; we should do the following:

1. Don't use differing versions of the same logo UNLESS there was a change of network.

2. Keep all historic logos to a minimum.

3. If there were slight "alterations" to a logo over the time that it was used, we must mention that in the text beneath the logo in question.

Comments, anyone?

WAVY 10 13:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This whole movement seems to be about emphasizing text at the expense of graphics. Both have their place. Seeing the different logos is a visual way of presenting the history of the station to the extent that it promotes itself; it is a business after all. And if any business is visual, it is television; it seems to me that the visual aspect should be represented. I just hope the issue of space can be ignored; after all, this is the Internet, and if there is one advantage of Wikipedia, it is that space can be provided for such items, as opposed to a print volume. I'd also add that finding such logos is often the result of hard searching by the writers and contributors; such things are not always available, especially for older logos. That work should be respected. I would finally suggest that before such moves as deletion, a warning be given on the discussion page of affected pages, or you will have a situation such as that at several pages now. DrBear 19:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that on numerous television pages which have logos, the galleries are being summarily removed, thus orphaning the logos inserted with a claim of fair use, and risking their deletion on those grounds. If logos and logo galleries are removed, it is entirely possible that the content (the images) will be deleted and will not be able to be retrieved, unlike text, where a history is permanently available. Many of these logos may have come from obscure websites or other places (someone's personal screenshot and the editor is two years gone, for example). I strongly suggest erring on the side of caution and keeping the logo galleries on all affected pages as this discussion is ongoing. Skybunny 20:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The point is not to reduce images to emphasize text. The point is to de-emphasize fair-use content in favor of free content. Free images just as good as free text, but free text is easier to come up with.

As for restoring images, should fair-use policy suddenly shift, images can be undeleted as easily as text now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

And, how do we do that? WAVY 10 00:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The same way you undelete any deleted page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've looked up Wikipedia:Administrators#Deletion and undeletion. The only Wikipedia users that have the power to delete and undelete text and images are administrators, of which User:A Man In Black is one; most who have contributed to this discussion are not, so from our point of view, it is "impossible" or "very difficult", especially if we try to ask any given administrator to undelete 50 images spanning months.

To User:A Man In Black: the argument that an image can "easily" be restored is only valid for an administrator talking to people who are also all administrators. That is not true here. I would like to suggest that your deletion of logo galleries from articles, while potentially allowing those images to orphan and be deleted, is a conflict of interest because the only person who can restore them is "an administrator" or, in practice in the context of this discussion, you, and you have already made clear your point of view on doing so. I would suggest that either deletion of fair use logo galleries by you should stop (and ideally, all that have been deleted should be restored right now to allow this discussion to continue on equal terms without risk of more orphaned and deleted images). If you are not willing to do such restores, then this discussion also needs more administrators who, coming in, are willing to shoulder the work of undoing what is being done.

I do not believe that the point of this discussion is to convince you personally that your interpretation of policy is incorrect. I believe the point is to arrive at a consensus that all editors can agree on, so we can edit articles appropriately moving forward. There are many points of view here, and yours is not inherently better than another. However, because you have the power to undelete images and are using that fact as justification to delete galleries now, it is in practice being made more important than others.

Ultimately what I and I believe many here want is resolution to this question, so we can get back to the business of editing Wikipedia. Having to address how images can be restored based on that decision is sidetracking everyone, and delaying this consensus building. Please consider, Skybunny 16:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I suppose it's time I actually stated my opinion on this discussion. I suspect that the logo galleries themselves are probably, for the most part, not kosher, because of the way they're collecting all of the fair use images together. However, I believe that many images inside those galleries could probably be inserted into appropriate sections of a station's history, and be completely valid fair use candidates - such as, if a station were to become an NBC affiliate in 1985, captioning that logo with 'WXXX's new 1985 NBC logo, featuring the distinctive NBC peacock'. That is, the logo itself should provide new information beyond simply a station's call letters or channel number - but a greater understanding of the station's history. The logo itself should be something that can be used as a reference toward the article. I do think that a logo change like "This new logo uses the Helvetica rather than the Times New Roman font" is excessive, and that sort of change probably can't be justified as fair use. By extension, this would suggest that logo galleries probably do have some images inside them used "for purely decorative reasons" - but also just as strongly that not all of them are. That said, logo changes very frequently accompany changes of ownership or affiliation - sometimes even branding of the station, all of which tend to be important for an source of mass media. I believe reasons like those are reason enough to explain with a picture - and logos cannot be reproduced with a different picture - the very definition of fair use.

I will likely be away from this discussion for a while, but it is my hope that my opinion will provide something toward consensus. Quick summary of my opinion: logo galleries are probably not fair use because of how they present fair use images, but they should not be deleted en masse because many images in the galleries may have excellent fair use justification. Articles could be slowly edited one at a time to find this appropriate balance, and then the galleries can be taken out, leaving the appropriate fair use images. Skybunny 16:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So, what is this proposal?

Is this proposal that the current rules are bad and should be changed, or that they're being enforced incorrectly? It seems that the claim is the latter, while all the arguments support only the former.

The bottom line is that WP:FUC gives the rules for when you can make a fair-use claim on Wikipedia. You can't make a valid fair-use claim without following those rules. We've been over this endlessly, and all of the arguments seem to be "Well, the rules should change." Personally, I have no emotional attachment to the current rules, but the fact remains that all of the images which don't meet those rules are subject to speedy deletion, and have since last May.

Now, I haven't been deleting images unless someone revert warred over reinserting them into articles without satisfying the rationale issues. If you think you can write a valid fair-use rationale for an image, go ahead and do so and reinsert the image into the articles, but bear in mind that no fair-use rationale is valid unless it explains how the image identifies the subject of an article (typically the infobox image) and/or explains that it is the subject of commentary in the article (and original-research-y commentary based on you looking at the logo and making comparisons is going to be swept away, along with the image, as with all original research).

These are what the rules are. If you don't like them, go ahead and work on getting them changed and don't worry about the images being deleted or not deleted in the interim, because they can be undeleted just as easily as they were deleted if and when you are successful changing policy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how one could read the above discussion and conclude that all the arguments are only about changing policy:

"The goal of this discussion is not to convince anyone to violate any Wikipedia policy, but rather to try to clarify the application of this policy. Some contend that galleries of fair use images violate FUCs #3 and #8; others, including myself, don't believe that the galleries violate those criteria." --User:dhett

"Explanations as to why the logo historical overviews are not in violation of Wikipedia policy (to the extent that our policy deviates from legal requirements) were set forth by members of the relevant WikiProject at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_4. My conclusions comport with those explanations ..." --User:Postdlf

"... your opinion that they [the logo galleries] violate WP:FUC is not consensus ..." --User:dhett

The only reason anyone is even considering changing policy is because of your heavy-handed enforcement of your personal interpretation of policy; for years, the logo galleries were generally left alone because there was a consensus that they did not violate Wikipedia policy. But since you insist on making the debate about changing policy, I will propose a change in policy wording here. DHowell 01:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

They were left alone largely because of ignorance of Wikipedia policy, and many of these date from before May 2006 (when lacking sufficient fair-use rationale became an issue that could lead to speedy deletion).

You're going to find more than just me, among Wikipedia's administrators, taking a hard look at older non-free images tagged as fair-use. I just happened to focus on this particular area.

That said, I'm not really interested in covering exactly the same ground as above on this talk page, once again, especially given that this proposal hasn't been touched in a month before Saturday. I'd suggest a fresh discussion, in a better-advertised venue, if you want to effect change. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Restating proposal

This is how I would handle the logo issue:

1. For the larger articles (generally in the larger markets), I would suggest the option of having the logos (non fair-use) in a logo gallery provided they do not include multiple variants of the same logo (again, unless there was a change of network affiliation; which would also take out many with a version to correlate with a specific image campaign) or to sprinkle the station's previous logos through the article (a la WWOR).

2. For the mid-size markets, a minimal logo gallery (see non fair-use mention in previous point) would suffice. The same rules apply as they would for a larger market.

Anything smaller than DMA #70 will not receive a logo gallery of any sort.

WAVY 10 18:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that. You don't make up topic-specific rules for each subject based on what sounds nice. We have one set of fair-use rules that apply to all non-free content. Without satisfying those rules, you cannot use non-free content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's get a consensus here

I notice that nothing has been moving on this issue for several months. In the meantime, a few power-hungry types are hacking away at some very good articles, trying to make them as bland as humanly possible. When I started pulling up a few articles, particularly KTLA and noticed the lack of historic logos, I felt sickened. Particularly since I myself have added historic logos to similar pages.

Personally, I am strongly against removal of historical logos, particularly those of television stations. I really do think they add a lot to the articles, and are of historical importance. If we can feature logos for all the many corporations and other entities out there, I see absolutely no problem with featuring ones of historic importance. And I think historic logos have more place on articles about television stations than ridiculous listings of every single detail about their newscasts. If the Wikinarcs want to battle something in regard to TV station articles, why not start there? Removing the logos does great harm to these articles. I vote strong keep. Let's get this thing settled once and for all.--Fightingirish 14:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And for the record, I do consider logos to be fair use in this case, particularly since many of these logos are no longer used by their entities, and many of them were created by or for companies that are no longer in business. --Fightingirish 14:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, my opinion is to keep the historical logos, and work towards restoring the ones that have been deleted. The Foundation resolution specifically allows our fair use policy "to include identifying protected works such as logos". These logos represent valuable historical information that is often difficult to find anywhere else online. DHowell 04:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd vote keep for the same reasons as FightingIrish gave. SterlingNorth 08:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My two cents is.. to also restore and keep the historic logo because they in my opinion do fall under fair use give the fact that a majority of the logos have fallen out of trademark protection due to the fact that the station(s) did not renew them after changing to a new more modern logo at the time such as the old red and blue N NBC logo which has been in public domain for quite some time. Again just my opinion. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)