Wikipedia talk:Logos/Archive 2

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 Wikipedia 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[1] and ESPN[2] 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\^talk 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\^talk 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?^[3] 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\^talk 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 ^{hook 'em} 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\^talk 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, Wikipedia 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\^talk 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 Wikipedia 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\^talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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\^talk 20:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

See Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. --MECU˜talk 14:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments like "See Wikipedia:Wikilawyering" serve only to inflame a conversation. Furthermore, Wikipedia: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▼^parler _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 Wikipedia: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 "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia -- 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia. 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\^talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 [a celebrity giving us a free image], 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\^talk 22:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: If the logo itself is not discussed, it is a clear violation of point 8 of the Wikipedia 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▼^parler _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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia and start with a different set of principles. However, the Foundation drives what we do over here. (ESkog)^(Talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia? 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 Wikipedia 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)
• Support, as I have found that when supporters of one position engage in bluster, threats, and ad-hominum attacks, the other position is invariably correct. Thanks for making it easy. Herostratus 05:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It does not appear to me that the inclusion of athletics teams logos in graphical form is improper. It provides information to the reader, allowing comparison of logos. It also communicates ideas to the reader which cannot be provided in descriptive/textual form. It also appears to me to be more than simple decoration. It seems like the "fair-use" exemption from copyright law would apply, and the issue of trademark law would not impair such non-commercial use of these logos, then I suggest that we do not change the policy and we do not change the standard practice of allowing the graphic logos to be collected and presented on the various articles. Streltzer 01:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You clearly meant to vote to support liberalising the usage of sports teams logos. Jkelly 01:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per fairuse counterexamples. There is no argument for their inclusion other than "they look pretty" - if they were free images that's fine - but they aren't free images. Megapixie 01:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion without bullet formatting and bolding

It seems to me that this is an attempt to make sports team logos exempt from Wikipedia: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 "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia: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\^talk 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\^talk 16:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, What it really boils down to here is that Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia's need to protect itself, I can not begin to comprehend why so many here are letting vague guidelines rule Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia's third pillar. ed g2s • talk 03:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am fully aware of Wikipedia'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. Wikipedia's goal is, IMHO, MORE than to provide free content. Wikipedia is here to provide the world with a first-rate online encyclopedia. If there are no legal boundaries preventing improvements to Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, not only as a website, but as a community. How can we help to make Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia oligarchy is seriously leaving a bad taste in my mouth. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Dknights411 14:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This is surprisingly heavy-handed and does seem to have circumvented any attempt at garnering consensus on Wikipedia (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.

Wikipedia 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)

I actually agree that logos should not belong in a gallery of images. But, in the case that I thought we were discussing, I feel they should. If there is a commentary (not just a one sentence mention, but something critical to the article), then the image should be allowed.--NMajdan•talk 15:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am confused. You stated that "The sides have 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." Does your policy reflect the consensus of the discussion (and if so please cite to where this consensus is) and if not, why can't anybody else simply create a policy contrary to yours and enforce that policy? Remember 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that my policy represents the sensible conclusion of the discussion. I am disregarding many of the opposes because in my opinion they lacked cogent reasons or were opposes for reasons that conflict with our foundational principles. I feel that it is my obligation to disregard such opposition as misguided. The mere fact that one has stood up and pounded on the table does not give one the right to prevent the creation of policy; one's objections must be reasonable. Unfortunately, in an electronic discussion it is very easy to persist in unreasonable objections; it is much harder to do so in person -- as those of us who attended some of the policy discussions at Wikimania were just recently reminded. I am even more convinced that we need to have more of these discussions in person, at least from time to time.

Anybody who wishes to create a policy contrary to the one I have crafted is welcome to try. I don't think they'll be successful, however, because such a policy would be contrary to Wikipedia's core principles and anyone attempting to enforce it will quickly find himself or herself in a great deal of hot water. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume you mean you disgregarded many of the "supports", not "opposes". Nonetheless, you should have ignored a lot of the opposes (those that opposed a looser interpretation of fair use) because they were premised on supporters wanting to change one of the founding principles of Wikipedia. That seems a false premise to me, per my statements below. Powers 18:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It was my understanding that policies were drafted via consensus. Is this not so? Please note that I am not arguing about the content or principles behind the fair use policy, but rather about an interpretation of it, and how the image uses in question relate to it. This is more a matter of policy interpretation than policy creation. Powers 18:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Policies are in fact drafted via consensus (except if they're Foundation-mandated). However, a formal consensus-gathering procedure is not always necessary. If enough people actively enforce a rule, and their numbers and persistence are sufficient to overcome any opposition, there's de facto consensus for it. In this case, Kelly is (if I may be permitted a small amount of speculation) betting that there's enough of a consensus amongst administrators that anyone who persistently violates it will be blocked, and that combined with the facts that a) she sees no merit in the opposition's views and b) there aren't realistically going to be any repercussions if she turns out to be wrong are sufficient to make this a logical path for her to take.

Personally, I'm in the camp that wouldn't endorse this without either community or Foundation agreement, even if there were unanimity amongst admins. In this case, I don't think there's going to be enough agreement among admins for this to be forced through, whatever Kelly says — at least two admins have already opposed this interpretation, one (Johntex) most persistently — but I could be wrong. I suppose we'll see, won't we? Wikipedia can be quite anarchic at times. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Quoting the admin page: From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community.... To further your arguments (I'm not sure if you believe it or were just playing devil's advocate, but they are yours for this disucssion then), if enough admins believe in something, desipte 100% of the rest of the non-admin community, it shall therefore become policy, since they hold the power to enforce the policy? Yet still, this then in fact has created a special subgroup, able to determine consensus upon the select group that matters (admins) and using their power to enfoce their views. In addition, to simply dismiss the arguments we have raised without a fair discussion of the issues or following policy in dispute resolution, fails to conform to the policy of Assuming Good Faith. To fail "to see merit in the opposition's views" (from a) above) is to feel that our arguments aren't acting in good faith and bring no merit or value to the discussion. To single-handedly decide this and declare a resulting policy is not the power of an admin. Only the selected few official arbitrators and Jimbo have such power. Neither has spoken officially, directly and succinctly on the matter. Any claim of such is an extrapolation of statements made and are subject to the personal view of the person citing it. If Jimbo came here and said: "No logos in lists." - then it would be such. But to claim that his statement that he feels Wikipedia should minimize use of copyrighted material (or in fact, not use it at all) is therefore "No logo in lists." is a extrapolation and claim. He has stated his view is exteme and therefore (this is my extrapolation) probably not consensus. Consensus drives Wikipedia. Not admins. Not policies. We cannot achieve consensus without discussion. Discussion of any issue should (must, is) be permitted in order to achieve consensus. --MECU˜talk 21:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's fairly simple: certain people here don't care about process or rules if they feel they're right. This is theoretically prohibited under various policies, but those policies have no mechanism for enforcement, and then there's always the specter of WP:IAR. Quoting policy pages isn't useful when the individual in question doesn't care about policy per se. And as I believe I've made clear, I don't agree with Kelly Martin's view on this issue. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about the way this is being discussed. It seems to me that the proposal was the one to liberalise our fair use policy in regards to logos, which did not gain consensus. Was the feeling at Wikimania that we needed a new logo-specific policy? Jkelly 16:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarification - my original proposal is for clarification, not to change policy. I believe the usage of the logos is already within policy and therefore policy does not need to be changed, only clarified. Johntex\^talk 19:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the policy should say the logo are acceptable and anyone removing them will be blocked. If I had the power to enforce this would it be policy given "the fact that a policy does not appear on any policy page does not in any way deprive it of policy status"? BCV 16:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hello Kelly Martin, please explain what basis you have for believing you have greater authority to decide this action than anyone else here. Last I checked, you are not an arbitrator and you don't have a seat on the Foundation Board or any other special qualifications to determine this issue. Also, scanning the conference schedule for Wikimania, I see no talks on logos, fair use, or anything else that appears relevant to this discussion. Did you have some hallway or late-night-bar chat session about this, and if so, what would make that more relevant than any similar discussion held by any other gathering of Wikipedians? Johntex\^talk 17:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• My my, what a trainwreck this has become. Gotta love how the thread quickly faded from topic to topic. I'll answer individually so that my vote er concensus building statements, can be accurately counted or not as the case may be.

• Support Logos in articles where the team is referenced prominently. Actually, many professional sports teams' names in the USA are copyrighted too, covered under some manner of legal protection, but it is ok to type them. edit own comment IANAL. — MrDolomite | Talk 00:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Undecided The determination of what is "prominently" above. Definitely grey. Team page? Yup. League Page? Probably. Infobox? Sure, small image. Playoffs page for teams in finals? Ok. On the article of a player who played for that team? Fuzzy.
• Oppose Logos in galleries. There shouldn't be any galleries as part of, or in lieu of, articles on WP. That belongs on Commons.
• What the? WP:LOGOS is a guideline not a WP:POL. Clearly, it needs to be one, good, bad or indifferent. If something happened at Wikimania, get it posted. More effort should be put into making that happen and not...
• WP:DICK being dicks. Statements like "rubbish", "my policy", WP:Wikilawyering (real or perceived), WP:CABAL are all childlike, inflammatory and definitely WP:NOT WP:AGF. I suppose this is where I'm supposed to jump up and down and rant things like WP:RFC, WP:ArbReq, WP:MEDCOM and WP:RFDA, for the lot of you! And your little dog too! And I probably should, because 1) there are certainly issues here which could and/or shoud be addressed in those forums and B) because I, like all editors, am entitled to my opinion, 3) arguments which degenerate this far are, as my brother says "It's like being in high school and having to wrestle the girl from the rival school. Even if you win, you end up loser." Having shared my 2 cents, I have sentenced myself to reviewing WP:TIGERS and WP:COOL while I have A nice cup of tea and a sit down. — MrDolomite | Talk 18:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well said Dolomite. Dknights411 18:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"Actually, many professional sports teams' names in the USA are copyrighted too…" No, names cannot be copyrighted. They are probably trademarked, but that's a whole different ball game, so to speak. —Bkell (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oops, fixed comment above, forgot to sign down here. — MrDolomite | Talk 00:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comment about names being legally protected is hardly relevant. Anyone can do anything they want with trademarks, as long as they don't use them in a way that is misleading. The name "General Motors" is a trademark, but I can do whatever I want with that name—I can use it in speeches, write a song with "General Motors General Motors" as the only lyrics, create a big sculpture of the words "General Motors", and so on—as long as I don't start manufacturing automobiles and labeling them with "General Motors". This is true for trademarked logos as well. But if a logo is additionally copyrighted, then that really restricts how I can legally use it. —Bkell (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you can't use trademarks in such a way that might suggest you're affiliated with the trademark holder, even if your product doesn't directly compete with theirs. To remain on the safe side, large companies usually have a footnote disclaiming association with a company whenever they mention a trademark of its. A song with "General Motors" as its only lyrics might be grounds for suit, depending on context, unless it explicitly disclaimed affiliation with GM. But still, it's irrelevant to Wikipedia, which no one could legitimately perceive as being affiliated with almost any holder of a trademark we discuss. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks for the correction. —Bkell (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• I still do not see a conclusion to this and User:Ed g2s is removing the galleries again. This entire subject is VERY frustrating. Common sense is losing out in this case, I'm afraid. I see no evidence here which conclusively states that the logos should be removed, but they are being removed. At the very least, I hope this discussion prompts the removing of ambiguousness of the wikipedia policies. --X96lee15 18:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

removed personal attack we can try to find an alternative that should make everyone happy. Although I'm hard pressed to think of an alternative that Ed will be pleased with, but oh well. Dknights411 19:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

An alternative is to support the dispute resolution process ongoing. Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-01 Fair Use Images on Sports Page - College Football Specific. --MECU˜talk 19:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• While I still support the continuation of discussion both here and at the potential mediation case, I have decided to file a Request for Comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin2. Johntex\^talk 22:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Coming back to the proposed clarification

It seems that most people are in agreement that galleries of logos are not a good thing to have. It also seems that most poeple are in agreement that use of the logos can be used where the team has been discussed. It has been suggested that each logo be used no more than once per page, and that suggestion has also received some support. Therefore, I am offering the following modified version of my original suggestion:

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. Each logo may be used no more than once per page. Use of the logo is not allowed in a list unless the list contains discussion of the team.

I look forward to comments on this suggested clarification. Johntex\^talk 17:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Basically, it is allowing the use of the logo in things like score tables, right? -- ReyBrujo 17:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It would dis-allow the use of team logos on a page just listing all the teams in a conference, but it would permit the use of team logos where there is discussion. For example, 2006 Rose Bowl would be able to show the logos of the two teams and the logo of the bowl. 2006_Colorado_Buffaloes_football_team would be allowed to include the Colorado logo at the top and the logo of the competing teams alongside the discussion of those teams. Johntex\^talk 18:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I am putting the clarification into the Guideline. Johntex\^talk 17:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You missed all of those opposing "votes" above? Jkelly 17:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It seemed to me that there were a variety of comments - some arguing for inclusion of all logos, including in galleries, some arguing for taking them out. It seems to me that the bulk of the commentators support clarifying that the logos may be used if and only if they are used alongside discussion. I also picked up the proposed modification that each logo be used only once per page. How, specifically, do you think I have misunderstood the discussion? Johntex\^talk 17:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There is significant opposition to the idea of using logos in the manner you just proposed, with concerns ranging from overuse of unfree content to the use being against already existing policy. See, for example, Carnildo, Simetrical, Bastique, Bkell, Mackensen, Adam Bishop, ESkog, and Voice-of-All. The proper way to do this is to get widespread consensus for liberalising Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, or for making logos exempt from it. Such a consensus doesn't seem to exist. Jkelly 17:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your position. I disagree with you that this is anything other than a clarification, and I disagree with you that any liberalization of policy is needed. If Image:IBM logo.svg is used on an article about IBM, why shouldn't a sports team logo be used on an article or section about the team? This is not a gallery we are talking about here, this is use of a logo alongside pertinent discussion. Johntex\^talk 17:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jkelly. Further, there is no reason at all to single out the use class of "sports team logos" for special treatment. Basically, the logo rules are based on laws that affect all use classes of logos equally. WAS 4.250 18:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

(reset)If you read the guidelines on the logos, they specifically refer and in general talk about corporate logos. There is support above to provide additional clarification about how sports logos may be used. This, I think, is what Johntex is trying to do. It seems that therefore your preference for clarification would be do say something like: Sports logos may only be used once per page, and only on an article titled about the team of the logo.? MECU˜talk 21:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Corporations aren't mentioned in Wikipedia:Logos. Companies are, but they seem to be used just as examples. Other examples include organizations, items, and events (see the first sentence). I see no guidelines that say anything specific to logos of companies. —Bkell (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wait, there is one: "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, 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'd say that's just an oversight, and it should read "…in an article about the owner itself, …" —Bkell (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. An oversight. Fixed. Sorry. Ya know, we aren't making this stuff up out of whole cloth. It is all based on laws about trademarks and copyrights and the Wikimedia Foundation's nonprofit charter. In this legal environment with these goals, this is what makes sense. Ya know, it is all GDFLed, meaning you can take any part of it you want and add anything you want and host it yourself at your own website and take full legal consequeses yourself for what you add. WAS 4.250 01:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Was 4.250, I don't see how this could be a violation of fair use. Could you please take a look at 2006_Colorado_Buffaloes_football_team and tell me if you think this article has so little discussion of the Colorado Buffaloes that fair-use laws would somehow prohibit use of the logo in question? Johntex\^talk 01:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked for logos at that article and found none. Perhaps if you create an actual example at Wikipedia talk:Logos/example I can say something useful. Just be aware of the difference between the fair use law and the wikipedia fair use guideline and the wikipedia fair use policy. Three different things. And all three change over time and are very subjective. The most useful approach is not "what can I get away with" but "what makes wikipedia better and is not going to be argued about too much" since the point is creating a great free encyclopedia and we all have better things to do than debate or revert endlessly over any one piece of it. WAS 4.250 06:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Mild oppose -- I think we could go and take photos of things with the logo on them instead of copying-and-pasting the logo. For example, one could take a photo of a baseball with the team logo on it instead of pulling the team logo off their Web site. --Guroadrunner 10:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyrightability of logos

This talk page seems to be pretty dead lately, so I thought I'd just open a can of worms, since no one else has been doing that. ;-)

Over on the Commons, User:Rtc holds the belief that most logos are not eligible for copyright. This is an interesting point of view, and one that I almost never see here on the English Wikipedia. His reasoning seems to make sense to me, though: The purpose of copyright is to protect creative expression, and so images that do not display a sufficient amount of creativity are not eligible for copyright. It would be absurd, for example, for me to draw a square and claim copyright on it. Even if I color it green, or draw a few lines through the square, it's still probably not creative enough for a valid copyright claim.

Of course, logos that contain a sufficient amount of creativity can be copyrighted, and almost certainly are. Rtc gives the KFC logo as an example of a logo with sufficient creativity, because it contains a creative representation of Colonel Sanders. But it seems to me that the H&R Block logo, for instance, cannot possibly be copyrighted, because there's no element of creativity. (All logos currently in use are likely to be trademarked, but that's not the issue in question here.)

A favorite reasoning of Rtc is to point out that design patents exist and can be obtained for logos. I don't know much of anything about design patents, but apparently they cost a nontrivial amount of money and last for a limited period of time. If copyright is free and lasts for 70 years or longer, Rtc argues, then why would anyone ever obtain design patents for logos, unless the logos in question were uncopyrightable?

Obviously there is a spectrum of logos, with the H&R Block logo near one end and the KFC logo closer to the other. At some blurry point along this spectrum, logos begin to have sufficient creativity to be eligible for copyright. Does anyone know of any court cases that have established any guidelines about where this blurry point might be? Or is it entirely subjective, never having been tested in court?

It should also be asked whether the possible uncopyrightability of simple logos makes any practical difference to how the English Wikipedia operates. It makes a big difference on the Commons, of course, where fair-use images are not allowed. But here, even if we agree that many logos are uncopyrightable, it would probably still be a safe idea to assume that logos are copyrightable and make fair-use claims for them.

However, in the interest of educating Wikipedians about copyright law, it would be good to note somewhere that works do have to have a sufficient element of creativity in order to be copyrightable. Many people seem to think that anything anyone creates is automatically copyrighted, which is only almost true. —Bkell (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the reasoning is faulty. The H&R Block logo is more than just a green square; obviously, no one can copyright that. The logo also includes the text appearing to the right of the green square, in a particular size, font face, and wording. (In fact, according to our article Logotype, it's not a logo without words of some sort.) Powers 13:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know; I still don't think that the addition of the text gives it enough creativity. It doesn't take too much creativity to place the name of a company to the right of a green square. Remember, if an image is copyrighted, then derivative works are prohibited without the copyright holder's permission. So if the H&R Block logo is copyrighted, does that mean that the following is a copyright violation?

H&R Block

I mean, it's a different color of green, and the words "H&R Block" are presumably in a different typeface and positioned slightly differently, but it's certainly a derivative work of the logo. But there's no creativity there. This is why it seems to me that you can't claim that typefaces and things are sufficient creativity for copyright, because you can change the typeface of something and get a derivative work; so if I set some phrase in a particular typeface, and I can claim copyright on it, then I'm in effect claiming copyright on the phrase itself. —Bkell (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between trademark and copyright and I think it would be valuable to understand the difference.

EdwinHJ | Talk 20:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the requirement that logos contain text seems bizarre to me. Are you saying that this isn't a logo? —Bkell (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The Copyright Office will generally not consider choice of typeface or color grounds for copyrightability. Short phrases are also not copyrightable. That means the only copyrightable element of the H&R Block logo is positioning, which seems quite trivial. I would agree that the H&R Block logo is unlikely to be subject to copyright. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Bkell has presented the argumentation very well. There are some things to add and clarify, however: First of all, it's not merely my opinion—actually, it's the opinion of Germany's highest appeals court (Bundesgerichtshof) and has been confirmed by the federal constitutional court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) as being in line with the German constitution (actual decisions see below). I also do not want to conceal that de:User:Historiograf was the first one to come up with these decisions and made them known (he wrote most of de:Schöpfungshöhe). Concerning the copyrightability in the US, you can read [4]. (Which I came up with only yesterday at Image_talk:BDSM-emblem.gif#Image:BDSM-emblem.gif. The important part is from "In accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Mazer v. Stein" to "would not cover the over-all configuration of the utilitarian article as such.") The situation is actually very similar—mere design of existing "utility articles" is not copyrightable "even if the appearance of an article is determined by aesthetic (as opposed to functional) considerations" (jewelry for example, so the dolphin earring would not be a sculpture, but industrial design and would not be protected by copyright); copyrightable is only what you would call "aesthetic excess" (Ästhetischer Überschuss) in Germany ("a carving on the back of a chair") of the utility article itself. The central question is merely if US law considers logos as "articles" so they can fall under "utility articles". Surely, their utility function is to clearly make something recognizable (a product, or a company).

I don't want to be unfair and exclude the opinion of the logo opponents (if you can read German, I wrote about it on de:WP:UF#USA Werke der Angewandten Kunst, too): They say that a difference needs to be made between "useful article" and "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works" as well as between "works of applied art" and "uncopy­righted works of industrial design", and logos would simple not fit the word "article", so my intepretation must be wrong. Instead, they say, that a logo is to be seen as "A two-dimensional painting, drawing, or graphic work [...] still capable of being identified as such when it is printed on or applied to utilitarian articles such as textile fabrics, wallpaper, containers, and the like." and thus in their opinion is copyrighted. Because copyright protection exists "regardless of factors such as [...] design patent protection" (which IMO would reasonably be seen in such a way that registring an object with 'aesthetic excess' does not block its copyright protection), would make it impossible to argue for logos as an "article" even if a design patent on logos would be existing (which nobody has checked yet). IMO, this position is contradictory, since the logo, even though it does not fulfil the functionality of clothing when being on the clothing, clearly has its own purpose, and I could as well argue for the clothing to be copyright protected simply because it does not fulful the logo's purpose and is entirely separate. Further I do not want to hide the fact that in the UK, as a country with 'sweat of the brow' copyright, the situation is different. Here's an UK court decision arguing for protection of even simple logos[5], since "if an artist uses his skill and labour to draw a word or phrase in a stylised way, as in the case of a logo, his drawing is capable of being an original work, protected by copyright law." Note that most countries have a different copyright doctrine based on originality instead of "skill and labour", to which this reasoning does not apply.

Back to the German jurisdiction, please note that there is a difference between the 'not enough creativity' and the 'design patent' argumentation. These are two different reasons used in German courts against copyright protection of works of applied art. If such a work does not show enough creativity, it's rejected outright (such as Image:SED-Logo.png, because all elements were known previously); but if it contains enough creativity, then the 'design patent is a lex specialis, thus we cannot copyright the average design of a logo' argument is being used (which, as I understand it, refers to aesthetic excess being necessay). That's how the decision for Image:Laufendes-Auge.jpg was made (which is the one confirmed by the federal constitutional court). Further note that they make a clear difference between works of fine art and works of applied art—just as the US law. Image:Black square.jpg was probably copyrighted, expiring only one year ago (although that must have been a very, very thin copyright, almost only to the point that you can't claim by context that you square is Malewitsch's square; so I think before it expired it was illegal to sell postcards with the square on the back, claiming that it's Malewitschs).

Why is the KFC logo a good candidate for being protected (at least partly) by copyright? Well, it has been drawn in such a detail that you can perhaps argue that it contains aesthetic excess which you can remove without any effect on the purpose of the logo: Its recognizability. Most logos are so simple that you can hardly remove anything without changing the logo's character significantly. But I'm not even sure about this one anymore since I read that the US requires independence of the aesthetic excess from the "article". I can't say if this is the case here. It would perhaps be given if a clearly separate ornamental frame is put around the logo, but doesn't it then become significant? Hard to say, perhaps, in a strict interpretation, copyright protection for logos might even be inherently impossible except in constructed, academic cases. (I imagine a gray square area of the logo turning out to be a complex painting under the microscope; that might definitely be considered as independent aesthetic excess, but then again which logo does have something like this? But note, US law says the logo as such is not protected then, only the painting as excess, so I can scan it and put uniform gray into that area, and the result would not be copyrighted.)

BTW, if you read about typefaces being copyrightable in Germany, that's a false rumor. Here, typefaces can be protected by design patents (Geschmacksmuster) just in the same way as in the US, they just last a little bit longer (25 years vs. 14 years; however you have to prolongate every five years, which costs a fee again).

I must confess that I have not seen a US decision about copyrightability of logos yet. If anybody can find one being in favour or against, especially if it uses arguments such as those presented by me above, I'm keen to know about it. IANAL --Rtc 08:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I will not address German law. I know nothing about it, and I can't read German. I question, however, whether it's relevant as a rationale for image use Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation servers are hosted in the US, after all (except for the Asian cluster). Regardless, on to US law.

I am also not a lawyer. However, I think you're misreading the relevant rulings. Creativity is what's required under US law; that's pretty much the sole criterion for eligibility of a work. And the bar for creativity is very low. "Aesthetic excess" is explicitly disclaimed as a criterion, with judges consistently holding that it's not their place to judge artistic merit. The purpose of the work is also completely irrelevant. The issue with utility is that if something's design is completely (or almost completely) determined by utility, then it's not deemed creative.

Let us consider some examples. One from the House Report you link to is an automobile. Now, is automobile design creative? In constructing a car, how many decisions were made on the basis of improved mileage or leg room or storage space, and how many on unrelated bases? I'm not a car designer, but I strongly suspect that the answer is that virtually every decision is carefully weighed on how it affects performance. That's a matter of skill, not creativity.

But now look at a logo. How do you approach it? There are infinite ways, and they all center on how people will perceive it. You must judge whether it is distinctive, whether it gives the impression you want, and so on. Strictly speaking, this could be viewed as a matter of mere skill as well, but in reality it's much vaguer: ten very skilled artists will come up with dozens of very different logos for the same company, and it's very hard to say that any one is "better" than the others. The difference is not "utilitarian"; it's a matter of taste. That's why they're creative.

I agree that this probably does not apply to logos that consist only of text and simple geometric figures, no matter how arranged. But something like Image:AFSLogo.gif? No, that's probably copyrightable. The exact configuration of the flag-shape and the funky little pattern are enough creativity. Or such is my take on it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Simetrical, you are wrong in a multitude of ways (the server location is entirely irrelvant; I presented not only German jurisdictions, but US and UK, too), you have basically ignored everything I wrote, and you simply repeated the same propaganda for copyright for logos I hear every day. Please at least try to read what I wrote even if it hurts to be refuted. Thanks. A logo is very likely a 'useful article' "the appearance [of which] is determined by aesthetic (as opposed to functional) considerations" without aesthetic excess. That's not copyrightable according to copyright law regardless how much creativity there is. Aesthetic excess is not a criterion for most types of works but that's clearly different for "utility articles" if you read the law, and it doesn't have anything to do with "artistic merit", but merely with "separability and independence from 'the utilitarian aspects of the article'" The utilitarian aspect of a logo is to make a product or company recognizable and it's questionable if even in principle there can be anything separate and independent from this utilitarian aspect. I am only repeating myself. You did not even with one word respond to these arguments. Why are you ignoring them? Image:AFSLogo.gif does not even have creativity, it consists entirely of previously known elements. --Rtc 08:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I read every word of what you said, and everything I wrote addressed it. Perhaps you missed the sentence where I disagreed with your interpretation: "The issue with utility is that if something's design is completely (or almost completely) determined by utility, then it's not deemed creative." Note that this word, which I emphasized, is the word used in the House Report. The logo's appearance is not determined by utility. This is notwithstanding the fact that the goal of the logo is utilitarian. The entire point of the "utility" provision is to clarify what's creative, not to create any doctrine that applies "regardless how much creativity there is".

You emphasize the question of separability, which I did not specifically address. Very well, let's look at it. The exact wording is "the design of a useful article shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independ­ently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article." So take Image:AFSLogo.gif. What graphic features can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article? The intersecting loops to the left of the lettering can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article. The shape of the flag can be identified separately from, and is capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article. The positioning of all elements relative to each other can be identified separately from, and is capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article. All these are copyrightable in the US.

To back up that last claim, let me quote Feist v. Rural:

The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, "no matter how crude, humble or obvious" it might be. Originality does not signify novelty; a work may be original even though it closely resembles other works, so long as the similarity is fortuitous, not the result of copying. To illustrate, assume that two poets, each ignorant of the other, compose identical poems. Neither work is novel, yet both are original and, hence, copyrightable. . . . The distinction is one between creation and discovery . . .

Why do you think this is not part of the "vast majority of works"? A typical photograph is copyrightable by dint of its creativity; is there any more creativity in saying "smile" and pointing than in deciding the curvature of a flag, picking four loops interlocking in a certain manner out of all possible symbols, deciding exactly what angle the loops should be positioned at relative to each other and the viewer, and positioning the objects in a particular fashion? I really don't think you have enough appreciation for how low the bar of creativity is in the US. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You still do not get the point. Nothing—by far nothing!—in Image:AFSLogo.gif is separate or independent from the utilitarian aspect—to make something recognizable. You can't remove anything from the logo without loosing its characteristics. Please get it: For applied art, only aesthetic excess is copyrighted. You speak like all those designers desparately trying to somehow beat around the bush that design of utility articles, even if the utilitarian aspect is determined entirely by aesthetic considerations (which you ignored again; and which is especially relevant for jewelry and logos) are simply not copyrighted. Yes, it is "regardless how much creativity there is". You can register these things as design patents already. There is no copyright protection necessary and it would be entirely nonsense, since nobody would register these patents anymore. It's the same again and again, the deep disbelief and astonishment about design of utility articles not being copyrighted, and deliberately so. Feist v. Rural is not talking about utilitiy articles. If you were right (and, for example Image:AFSLogo.gif was copyrighted), the differences that are made for utility articles would be clearly absurd. You'd have to explain why law makes these differences when, in the end, according to you, in practice it would not make a difference. --Rtc 12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have, in fact, carefully explained why the exception is made for pure utility, namely that genuine utilitarian concerns are not creative. This explanation makes clear the distinction between purely utilitarian concerns on the one hand, and applied art on the other. If no one else is confused as to how I specifically addressed your points, I rest my case. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not say what is creativity is and what is not. A logo is basically always purely utilitarian. You ignore again and again the core of my argumentation, "even if the appearance of an article is determined by aesthetic (as opposed to functional) considerations, only elements, if any, which can be identified separately from the useful article as such are copyrightable." --Rtc 11:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Rtc has American law with regard to Trademaks and copyright exactly backwards; possibly being misled by his prior experience with German law - but then I know little of German law on these issues so I couldn't address that. In any case if anyone wants a good authoritative overview on american law on copyright and its key issues (which does not include "utility") I recommend Copyright and Fair Use Overview by Stanford University. As for Rtc's misunderstanding: This is better explained here in the section called Section 113. Reproduction Of Pictorial, Graphic, And Sculptural Works In Useful Articles. Note that The rule of Mazer, as affirmed by the bill, is that copyright in a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work will not be affected if the work is employed as the design of a useful article, and will afford protection to the copyright owner against the unauthorized reproduction of his work in useful as well as nonuseful articles. is the context. In other words, copyright protection was added to useful articles and inorder to not allow the copyrighting of the streamlining of cars and planes, it had to made clear that that was not included in the added copyright protection. An image that is copyrightable does not lose copyrightability just because it is also a trademark (in the US; I know nothing about other nations in this regard except I know much effort is being made to coordinate international intellectual property laws). WAS 4.250 22:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The page is not 'better explaining', but talking about something entirely different. It is talking about a previous existing work, for example an artist's drawing of a car. Now the page says two things: 1. If a car is built based on the drawing, the car does not have copyright protection. 2. On the other hand, the drawing does not loose copyright protection just because the car is built. But in the case of a logo, the drawing and the useful article are identical, invoking "the appearance of an article is determined by aesthetic (as opposed to functional) considerations", in which case "only elements, if any, which can be identified separately from the useful article as such are copyrightable". --Rtc 11:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, they both discuss the same issue. You are in error. It is a fact that An image that is copyrightable does not lose copyrightability just because it is also a trademark (in the US). The fact that you only have original research (arguments) to indicate otherwise rather than simply showing that an expert source like Standford clearly says so should indicate to you that you are in error. A good sign of getting something wrong is when if you try to prove something you can prove the evidence that lead you to your wrong belief but you can't find evidence of anyone else drawing the same conclusion. You get the final word. I'm not gonna argue about this anymore. WAS 4.250 22:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I always find it funny to see people reacting as if nothing were wrong, even when they are facing devastating refutation. Your attempts to knock down straw men is ridiculous. Never did I claim that trademarking something in any way affects copyright. Not in Germany, not in any other place in the world. You are in wrong belief, and you should see that you can't find any reputable evidence of anyone else drawing the same conclusion as you. I have given lots of indications and a argumentation consistent with all sources, while you are staggering in disbelief. Show me one court decision enforcing copyright for logos in the US. Only one! I suggest you read this three times a day as a prayer, until you start to believe: even if the appearance of an article is determined by aesthetic (as opposed to functional) considerations [as is the case for jewelry and logos], only elements, if any, which can be identified separately from the useful article as such are copyrightable. In fact, all designers should do so, and attempts to trick people into believing logos were copyright protected should be punished harshly under anti-copyfraud law. --Rtc 10:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not read any of the above other than the question of "can trademarks be copyrighted?"; but I am a lawyer (of recent vintage) and I took copyrights and trademarks (2 separate classes) in law school in the past 3 years and I can say they exist, in the US at least, concurrently. They are different branches of IP (patents is the 3rd), and anyone wanting to know more should learn both and then see how they both work. To make it far too simplistic: TMs have infinite duration but require much more work to maintain; CPs are well protected but have finite terms (that now last a very long time... but that's another issue altogether). Sometimes logos are only defended with TM law, but you do see both CP and TM arguments used. Obviously, a CP can expire in which case only the TM IP can still be used (the logo ought to be very, very old at that point). "The End."(?) --Bobak 01:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. My original question was a solicitation of opinions to the following question: At what point do logos become creative enough to qualify for copyright protection? I asserted that the H&R Block logo is too simple for copyright protection, as it contains no elements of creativity. —Bkell (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"There is no hard and fast rule as to how much creativity is enough. As one example, a work must be more creative than a telephone book's white pages, which involve a straightforward alphabetical listing of telephone numbers rather than a creative selection of listings. Does copyright protect an author's creative ideas? No. Copyright shelters only fixed, original and creative expression, not the ideas or facts upon which the expression is based. For example, copyright may protect a particular song, novel or computer game about a romance in space, but it cannot protect the underlying idea of having a love affair among the stars. Allowing authors to monopolize their ideas would thwart the underlying purpose of copyright law, which is to encourage people to create new work."[6] WAS 4.250 07:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Bkell, there is creative judgement in picking the square and the color. Yes, I'm being serious. The case WAS 4.250 cited is the often-cited guidance for these issues. For example: in that case, the information in a phone book is technically not copyrightable; but how the information was arranged is. Here's another example: if I were to paint an image of a green square, copyright would attach. Does that make sense? Copyright law is surprisingly simple when it's explained right ;-) --Bobak 23:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You are oversimplifying here and equating works of applied art with works of different kinds. For works of fine art, a square does not even need to be green to be restricted by copyright: Image:Black square.jpg was most certainly copyrighted until recently. But you cannot compare that, since a painting is, in contrast to a logo, not a utility article. --Rtc 23:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Rtc, I answered WAS 4.250's question. I answered a question about "A", and you've retorted with "Oranges are vegetables". Not only is that point not relavent, you have actually mistated US copyright law: There is no dividing line in the way you are trying to explain. I don't even know how you contrued my comments to somehow claim that the black square wasn't copyrightable (it certainly was). What I do know is that this division you're implying has no ground in US copyright law and, by extension, any nation respecting US copyright law. If you can cite credible sources otherwise, please do so. --Bobak 21:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It makes a difference between utility articles and other types of works. Actually read the law and see [7]. See also as a prominent example typefaces, which were under dispute several times, and were clearly deemed as not copyrightable. And typeface design is surely more creative than drawing black squares. "the design of a useful article * * * shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independ­ently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article." "even if the appearance of an article is determined by aesthetic (as opposed to functional) considerations, only elements, if any, which can be identified separately from the useful article as such are copyrightable." --Rtc 01:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Can trademarks be copyrighted?" The answer to that question has never been controversial: Yes, trademarks can be copyrighted. But the question is misleading. Please, User:Bobak, read the actual discussion. And please, WAS, stop your design lobby activism and stop to ignore the central arguments. even if the appearance of an article is determined by aesthetic (as opposed to functional) considerations, only elements, if any, which can be identified separately from the useful article as such are copyrightable. --Rtc 11:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain this to me?

This goes beyond logos, but anyway, here's what I don't get: why does the encyclopedia need to be freely distributable, anyway?

Yes of course it should be freely accessible, and at no cost, but that's way different. But it is freely accesible, if you have a computer and an internet connection. Yeah someday there could be a CD version, but really, why? That's a dying batch technology anyway. And a printed version even more so, not that a traditionally printed version is ever going to be made. I'm perfectly OK with, is someone has to have a printed encyclopedia, call Brittanica (if they even make print versions anymore), and I suppose a lot of other editors probably are too.

I mean, I'm working on the Wikipedia encyclopedia. If someone else wants to make a printed or CD copy and sell or give it away, why am I supposed to care about them? Let them solve their own problems. I didn't sign on to make a second-rate encyclopedia, one with glaring holes in the image department, just so that answers.com or whomever doesn't need to do any work on their own. Right? Am I missing something here?

The one objection I can see to this is, OK, Joe Thirdworld who has access to a computer but not the internet, he could use the CD. But I mean, man, most anywhere there's a phone line there's internet access, or will be pretty soon, right? Are there really lots of potential users out there who do have computers but don't have phone service? Does anyone have actual data on this?

And is it really worth crippling the encyclopedia for this handful of theoretical potential users? Seriously, what am I missing here? Herostratus 23:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's primarily a matter of idealism, as far as I can see. I don't think there are very good practical reasons for it. You wouldn't be able to sell a hard copy of Wikipedia if it weren't free, but a hard copy would be immediately obsolete and ridiculously incomplete compared to the online version. It's certainly true that mirrors are good for spreading the knowledge, but I must agree that that seems to be about it in terms of concrete benefits.

Regardless, policy is policy. Unless you can change Jimbo's (and/or the Board's) mind, we're remaining free, and there's not much point discussing it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

why does the encyclopedia need to be freely distributable, anyway? because we want everyone in the world for the rest of time to benefit

Yes of course it should be freely accessible, and at no cost, but that's way different. But it is freely accesible, if you have a computer and an internet connection. Not everyone does. In fact most people don't.

Yeah someday there could be a CD version, but really, why? Because the idea is to give everyone data, even really really poor people. Especially really really poor people. Has it missed your notice that we are interested in data provided to people in every major language?

That's a dying batch technology anyway. You view reality through the eyes of one of the world's richer persons. Do you know how many people die every year because they don't know to add a little salt and sugar to boiled water to feed to their dying dehydrated children?

And a printed version even more so, not that a traditionally printed version is ever going to be made. People have already printed out portions.

if someone has to have a printed encyclopedia, call Brittanica Back to people without money or net connections

If someone else wants to make a printed or CD copy and sell or give it away, why am I supposed to care about them? That is the official mission of Wikipedia and Wikimedia. You don't have to care. Wikimedia foundation and many of us do care.

Let them solve their own problems. I didn't sign on to make a second-rate encyclopedia, one with glaring holes in the image department, just so that answers.com or whomever doesn't need to do any work on their own. Right? Am I missing something here? This is a volunteer community designed to bring all the world's knowledge to everyone, not just those with an internet connection. No one is forcing you to be a part of it.

The one objection I can see to this is, OK, Joe Thirdworld who has access to a computer but not the internet, he could use the CD. But I mean, man, most anywhere there's a phone line there's internet access, or will be pretty soon, right? Are there really lots of potential users out there who do have computers but don't have phone service? Does anyone have actual data on this? Yes. It is the case that most the people of the world lack access to both computers and telephone lines. Printed output on key health issues for example can save lives. (But why worry about that when we can have a gallery of Pam Anderson images - whoooo!) WAS 4.250 04:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

And is it really worth crippling the encyclopedia for this handful of theoretical potential users? Seriously, what am I missing here? - unsigned

You are missing that it is not crippling the encyclopedia. The Wikimedia Foundation would rather spend 100,000 dollars on printing and distributing CDs and printed pages rather than on a lawsuit on fair use images. WAS 4.250 04:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, well, those are reasonable points, and thank you for responding. It's interesting, though, that the foundation and the community are basically in agreement about everything -- NPOV, NOR, verifiability, and so forth -- except on this one issue, which does create friction. Herostratus 13:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that WAS 4.250 makes some good points. However, I am having trouble connecting them to logos. Why can't the printed encyclopedia include appropriate use of fair use images? There will never be a free equivalent of the IBM company logo. I see no reason to remove it either from our pages here or from a printed vesion of the encyclopedia. Johntex\^talk 17:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The response to that, I think, is that every single unfree image makes redistribution harder for anyone who wants to make printed, burned, etc. copies. Online redistributors can hide behind content-distributor shield laws, but if you print up and distribute something that's a copyvio, you can't respond to a cease-and-desist letter by saying "Okay, we'll take it down". So any such redistributor will have to carefully examine every fair-use image, I guess, and the more the harder. Except that realistically they'll have to examine every "free" image too, because many of those will be mislabeled, which would logically suggest that we should use as few images as possible period. Although one could argue that the community at this point will grow faster than the number of articles, and therefore the number of people to examine copyright status will grow faster than the number of things to be examined, and sooner or later we'll be able to properly vet everything . . . but then you get into the issue of things that are only free in some jurisdictions.

As I say, I view it as more idealism than pragmatism. But Foundation policy is Foundation policy. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sports logos

I think it is counterproductive to single out sports or team logos. Logos are like national flags and can and should be used as a visible symbol that identifies a thing. We have lots of tables listing nations with the nation flags the height of a capital letter symbolizing the nations. Computers replacing typewriters is allowing humanity to recover some of the usefulness of pictorial communication or idea-graphs. The point is the sports logos and corporate logos and national flags, when used in this capacity must be the size of the written language (like chinese writing) and still meaningful in establishing identity. Since I care very little about sports logos, I have no opinion about their meaningfulness if reduced in size like we do flags in tables. WAS 4.250 20:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe sports logos are being singled out because the guideline on Logos are more descriptive for corporate logos, and sports logos are left to the wayside. Flag are different since they aren't logos, but flags. I'm not sure of the copyright on them, but I don't think they're covered under fair use. MECU˜talk 21:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

But both logos and flags are emblems used for identification, and as such, both can be used, moderatley of course, for identification purposes. However, if we use the decoration arguement against logos, shouldn't we use the same arguement on flags as well? I mean the name of the country is enough to identify countries. But flags are still used anyway. Why? To VISUALLY identify the country, even though its use is not necessary at all. If logos are being used in the EXACT same way on tables to visually identify teams, then a fair use violation hasn't been broken. But if it's a decoration violation, then ALL the flags images aoutside of country artocles MUST be removed as well. Dknights411 21:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your argument and like it, but I think the difference is that logos are used under fair use, while flags are under a different copyright/free status, and the use as decoration is only as a fair use policy on images. So you can't claim that we should remove all decorative images, since the free ones are free to use as you wish (though just putting a USA flag on every article because the image is free is a different matter.). MECU˜talk 22:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The legal ability to use logos based on "fair use" considerations includes their use in for profit and printed venues if they are idea-gram size (capital letter size). I believe it. I am not a lawyer. The legal situation is in such a flux, I have doubts anyone's opinion on this is especially noteworthy. Can someone indicate otherwise? I love to learn. WAS 4.250 02:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Most jurisdictions don't release their flags into the public domain, so flags that aren't very simple typically must be used under fair use. This does mean, yes, that they should not be used in lists, presumably. I would still like clarification from Jimbo or Brad. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've always figured that fair use is is a lot more problematical, at least in real-life de facto terms, if the accompanying text is negative, After all, in real life, we wouldn't get sued (or just asked to remove the logo) if we include the Notre Dame logo in a gallery or a bland article, but if it was included in an article about scandals at Notre Dame they might object. Many of our country articles surely contain information that the country would find objectionable as it goes against the country's PR slant. China for instance. Does China "own" its flag? They probably think so. On the other hand, does a soverign state have standing to sue in Florida courts? I would tend to doubt it, but I'm not sure. Herostratus 18:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Legality has nothing to do with whether the copyright holder can sue. —Bkell (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

...but it has everything to do with if they can win :-p (I just couldn't leave that hanging in good conscience) --Bobak 21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was, it is irrelevant to the copyright status of a work whether the copyright holder can sue or not. I can still hold a copyright to a painting I make, and it would still be illegal for Wikipedia to infringe my copyright, even if I am unable to sue. —Bkell (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationales

I've been asked to write a fair use rationale for the Apple Corps logo as part of that article's Good Article candidacy. It would be really helpful if some guidance were given on this page about how to write such a rationale for a corporate logo. Can anyone oblige? --kingboyk 14:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You have the logo for Apple Records at Apple Corps. In addition to being far larger than needed for any encyclopedic purpose that I can think of, why do you have a symbol meant to represent one thing on an article about another (albeit related) thing? WAS 4.250 22:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Football teams logos

I do not understand if it is possible or not to put all the logo of the teams of a league in the league article, in order to decorate the league records.--Kwame Nkrumah 23:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is to added to Wikipedia articles for the mere sake of "decoration". Perhaps you misspoke and would like to add logos to an article to make it a better encyclopedia article by enhancing communication though nonverbal means - in other words to add sports logos for identification purposes. If that is your concern then yes, by all means. But make the logos as small as possible consistent with the purpose of identification. If they can't be distingished one from another then that's useless. If they are larger than needed for identification, then what's the point - to "decorate"? We are here to communcate. That is our mission. Not pretty pages. Communication done right has a beauty all its own. WAS 4.250 01:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

So in that case, a listing like this...

• Image:San Antonio Spurs logo.png San Antonio Spurs

...is indeed ok for ID purposes as long as the logo is small? This is what I thought all along, and this was the main point I was argueing to Ed about. So it IS ok after all? Dknights411 15:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as legal concerns and wikipedia policy go, it is fine. One could still object to it on stylistic grounds; for example if other similar terms were not provided with logos or if doing so for other similar terms would make reading the text more difficult rather than more clear. WAS 4.250 22:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? The licence says the logo can "to illustrate the corporation, sports team, or organization in question". This is not an illustration, but a mere "decoration", to use your words.--BaldClarke 15:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure. No, "illustrate" does not mean what you are indicating it means. Finally, the logo owner doesn't get to define copyright or trademark law, anyway. WAS 4.250 16:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict. See my answer below to Dknights, please.)--BaldClarke 16:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly HOW is this "mere decoration"? The icon isn't prominant, and it distiguishes the team among other logos that are listed. This would actually fall under "illustration". I'm still not convinced that this practice is wrong. Besides, when used right, this practice becomes an valuable tool to the encyclopedia (NBA seasons articles for example). I only wish Ed and the others would actually entertain this view, instead of striking it down the way they have been doing thus far. Dknights411 15:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference between having a picture in George W. Bush page showing George W. Bush, and adding an image of George W. Bush everytime you put a link to George W. Bush? The first is information, the second is decoration.

And if you don't like this example, take a look to San Antonio Spurs over here. What information is "illustrated" by the image that can't be seen/read in San Antonio Spurs page? None, so in that case it is "mere decoration". --BaldClarke 16:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

(<---) You are thinking of images as being pointlesslyredundand, like repeating the same sentence over and over. What you ae missing, perhaps, is the idea of communicating through multiple means. For example an audio recording of an article is a useful duplication of information that communicates in a way different than the written word. So too, pitures and idea-grams communicate differently than sequences of letters. Some people are dyslexic to some degree and find images of flags next to country names (for example) very helpful in distinguishing between countries. Logos can do the same thing. Spamming them evrywhere is obviously not a good thing, but muti-media communication helps. Like when a teaches says it and writes it rather than just one or the other. We have lots of tables listing nations with the nation flags the height of a capital letter symbolizing the nations. Computers replacing typewriters is allowing humanity to recover some of the usefulness of pictorial communication or idea-graphs. The sports logos and corporate logos and national flags, when used in this capacity must be the size of the written language (like chinese writing) and still meaningful in establishing identity. WAS 4.250 17:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not "thinking of images as being pointlessly redundand", I am thinking that if you want to say that San Antonio won the championship, you can write "San Antonio Spurs", and if people are interested in the logo (which is a different information from the identity of the of the team: tell me, without checking the linked pages, what team is Image:Al nassr logo.gif). Adding the image, the link to a spoken file, or whatever, does not increase the most important information, that is "San Antonio won". It is completely different if your concern is accessibility for people with perception disfunctions (pardon, I do not really recall the politically correct name for them): but you should say it clearly, and we could discuss it. As regards information, using images when dealing with Image:San Antonio Spurs logo.png San Antonio Spurs or George W. Bush, it is merely decoration. (The matter with flags is different, if you want we can discuss that too.) --BaldClarke 17:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

HOLD ON A SECOND! I never meant it like THAT. I meant using this sort of ID icon on tables and such, not for EVERY link! One use of one particular logo per article is what I had in mind. Anything else would be too much, and unnessecary. Again I stress, we're not looking to using logos EVERYWHERE in an article! Dknights411 18:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. As I said earlier "Spamming them everywhere is obviously not a good thing." WAS 4.250 06:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously mine was an exaggeration! But it served me to show my point: what further information carries the image, that is not carried by the name of the team? The answer is none. This is the point.--BaldClarke 10:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The human mind processes images differently than strings of letters. In a table with a bunch of countries, the flag symbols can help with both identifying and locating specific countries. Same for other tables. One doesn't have to be dyslexic to appreciate the benefits of multimedia communication. Its silly to sprinkle them thoughout a paragraph. Its useful to have them in a table or list where you might wish to quickly find one entry and use the brain's image processing machinery to do that. WAS 4.250 11:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that images are a different medium that can be useful. But let me know why having them in a list like

• Image:San Antonio Spurs logo.png San Antonio Spurs
• George W. Bush

is different from having inline when you cite the relevant link, like for George W. Bush or Image:San Antonio Spurs logo.png San Antonio Spurs, when your aim is to help identification of the information.--BaldClarke 12:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Orthagonality assists in groking the whole. Jumbling them together in a mismash makes reading it harder, not easier. Presentation of information has to do with human perception traits. WAS 4.250 12:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

Ok, I flipped through the archives and could not find any comments on this. I'm wondering if it is acceptable to use a copyrighted image (under Fair use) in a Userbox. For example, using a sorority logo in the userbox saying that a person is a member of the sorority; or a sports team logo saying a person is a fan of that team. This may be a stupid question, but I can't really seem to find a straight answer. Thanks for your input! -Elizabennet 02:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not. According to our Fair use criteria (see 9th entry), fair use images should be used only in article namespace, not in templates, user or talk pages. You can't use them in article talk pages, and there is a grey area when dealing with portals. Basically, you can't use fair use images in any page that starts with User: Talk: or Template: -- ReyBrujo 02:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the clarification! -Elizabennet 02:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of logos when and organization forbids

I propose adding the following to the guidelines:

When an organization forbids the use of its logo in print or online, do not include the logo in a Wikipedia article. If an editor challenges the addition of a logo on this basis and provides a link to the statement forbidding the use of the logo, do not restore the image to the page.

An example of a case involving this: "Who May Use This Logo" in Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod Graphics Standards clearly forbids the use of this image by non-members of the church, yet folk keep inserting it on the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod page.

Does anyone mind if I make this change? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No, this would pretty much eliminate the use of any logo in any article. The use of logos to illustrate the organization discussed in an article is widely accepted as fair use. Your specific dispute regarding the LCMS logo should be handled on the talk page of that article. —ptk?fgs 15:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Normally I'd try that, but all I'm getting is "your wrong" responses. No one ever tries to document "widely accepted as fair use." Do we really want to go against the wishes, of a copyright holder responding, "it's fair use, so go away?" --CTSWyneken^(talk) 21:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia interpretation of the law:

1. The use must not attempt to "supersede the objects" of the original but rather be educational or critical.
2. The less of the original that is used in relation to the whole the more likely that use is fair, though the importance of the specific portion is also considered (as quoting the most important part may attempt to "supersede" the original).
3. The use must not infringe on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work (for instance, by acting as a direct market substitute for the original work), though not through criticism or parody.

These three conclusions were drawn by Wikipedians through discussions, and are considered correct, especially having a legal department in Wikimedia to handle legal matters.

Now, that image is a specific issue. Maybe that image could go the way Image talk:Crosstar.png has gone, it depends whether the copyright owners decide to contact Wikipedia to force us stop using it. I am not sure if they can force you to ignore a law because it fits them. I believe the copyright owners can ask you to stop using it, just like what happened at Carlson Twins (see talk page). However, if you really want to know if it is legal to claim fair use for the Church image, ask User:BradPatrick for advice. -- ReyBrujo 22:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that the vast majority of the copyright holders of various logos have any objection to the logo being republished on Wikipedia, as it is a free contribution to their branding on a high-traffic website. In any case, it is true both that a claim of "fair use" is used when there is no publishing licensing arrangement with a copyright holder, objection or not, and that we generally prefer to be respectful of the wishes of content creators and would like to resolve any copyright concerns so that all parties are happy. There is nothing specific to logos that makes them different enough from other unfree content on Wikipedia that we need to create new rules for objections from copyright holders. Jkelly 18:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'd definitely be against changing our policy to give an organization veto power over whether we use their logo or not. Fair use legal doctrine does not require the permission of the owner of the content. Johntex\^talk 18:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Would someone please cite some court cases, statute or even legal text that says this use is fair? Especially over the explicit objections of a copyright holder? I've studied copyright law informally for years in connection with assembling an electronic text initiative on the internet and everything I've seen leans against fair use in this context. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 21:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This question is strangely phrased. Fair use is a defense, in the United States, against a claim of copyright infringement. If one needs to defend oneself from a claim of infringement, it can be assumed that the copyright holder objects. Our article has more information, including links to useful resources. Wikipedia:Fair use differs from the general case in many ways (we "claim fair use" on non-commercial-licensed media, when we don't legally need to, for instance, and we restrict ourselves in ways we legally probably don't need to). I'm unaware of any court cases specifically about the use of logos in encyclopedias, but I cannot imagine that you're expecting something like that. Can you clarify? Jkelly 21:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I'm sorry I can't cite a specific court case and I am not giving legal advice here, but the very first sentence of our article on Fair use makes clear that the copyright holder's permission is not required. You can also read that permission is not required at legal sites like Stanford.

I did a quick Google search on "fair use of a logo" for you and I found this forum where two lawyers are giving advice on the fair use of a logo. I quote "For example, I can use the Honda trademark to describe Honda cars. That's what the trademark is for." This supports my understanding that we can use trademarked logos to represent what we are talking about in the article. Permission of the owner is most definitely not required. Johntex\^talk 21:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, we cannot just use a forum as a reliable source. -- ReyBrujo 22:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't just give a link to a forum. I also gave a link to our own article (which lists multiple sources) and to Stanford. If you want more references you are welcome to look for them. Johntex\^talk 22:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur with JohnTex. Fair use is not about permission from the owner, it's development owes to the fact that owners try to restrict the use of their trademarks and copyrights to the point where the came to recognize fair use areas. I say this with some professional knowledge ;-) --Bobak 22:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What it is about is that Wikipedia be able to be created without a huge investement in legal fees because of legal disputes. If we can use good sense and use these trademarks (logos) in sensible ways which do not tred into legal disputes then Wikipedia can roll on. But if we attempt to challenge the edges, if editors refuse to be satisfied with low resolution, accurate depictions of trademarked, legally protected logos then we could (at least in theory) stultify the growth of Wikipedia. So, let's not use the largest, most high resolution image of a logo that we can find, but use a logo image that people can recognize, one that is "good enough" and let's not use them in derogatory, challenging sorts of ways, okay? Terryeo 07:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Please come provide your opinion

There is a dispute about whehter or not the institution's logo may/should be used at Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. Discussion is at Talk:Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. Please come by and let us know your views. Thank you, Johntex\^talk 17:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding a hostage situation

I have recently had an experience where an editor has quoted this policy "In the case of any dispute, the burden of proof is on the person who wishes to include the logo." as a reason to hold up consensus on using the logo. I have explained that our policy is not intended to give one editor veto power in the face of multiple explanations as to why the logo is usable within policy. To prevent people getting the wrong idea that one person may use a veto vote in such a case, I am adding a clarification to the wording. Johntex\^talk 15:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

As the said editor holding the image hostage... are you saying that, if the copyright holder to an image objects that we should not remove the logo? The change appears to be saying that. It appears that we are inviting cease and desist letters by such a policy. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not what I am saying at all. I seperated the two issues into two seperate points.

• The first point now says "In the case of any dispute, the burden of proof is on the person who wishes to include the logo. This does not mean, however, that one person may veto a consensus on the use of the logo, unless that person is the owner of the logo."
• The second point now says "When a logo is removed because of an objection on the part of the owner, no attempt should be made to re-insert the logo (except perhaps..."

I did not change the wording at all with respect to the owner of the logo, only with respect to a non-owner editting the article. I think this will make clear that a given editor to the article cannot veto consensus, but that the owner of the logo still represents a special case. Johntex\^talk 16:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That clarifies the issue nicely. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Johntex\^talk 18:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Vector logos

Ok, last time I was in a discussion for this, I'm pretty sure it was agreed not to use vectors for logos (as a result, I've been continuing to get vectors from PDF reports of companies, but then rendering them in PNG for upload - while keeping an archive of the SVG myself) BUT, does the mere existance of {{Brands of the World SVG}} not completely contradict this policy of not using vectors? When I was uploading SVGs, they were always sourced from the company itself (almost invariably converted from a vector in a financial report) but Brands of the World doesn't even do this, or at least not all the time (i.e. the representation might not even be completely accurate) - ^???_???^{(t • c • e)} 23:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I like vector images - why would anyone want to get rid of them? Sure "fair use" and stuff, but I'm sure companies would prefer their logos be shown as best as they can - it makes them look more professional or something somehow. --WikiSlasher 02:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I'm debating. In all honesty, I would much prefer to be able to use SVG, but it has been agreed upon not to, since most people think it wouldn't be fair use. I'm questioning why images with this template are allowed when Brands of the World often manually redraws images (i.e. they're not even official constructions in addition to being vector). Also we can't assume that about companies - they probably wouldn't like the idea that a vector of their logo on Wikipedia makes it so accessible (since Wikipedia is used so much) - ^???_???^{(t • c • e)} 15:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)