Talk:Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod/Archive 2

message: First, my standard disclaimer: IANAL and even if I were, this would not be legal advice, but I do have experience in Intellectual Property.
I don't see a trademark problem because the logo itself is, at best, a matter of common law trademark and the use is illustrative and doesn't appropriate or disparage the trademark.
As to copyright, though the entire work is being "taken," the non-profit and scholarly nature of the use makes it, IMO, almsot certainly fir use.
But let's be practical. Trademark or copyright or no, we would use it if the Synod thought it was OK, and probably remove it if it made them unhappy, simply as a matter of courtesy. Has anyone asked them? Now if we don't know their feelings on the matter, I, personally, would have no problem using it. As to a priori censoring ourselves in not using it in the scholarly manner we are, I see no point in that. As has been said, pending a definitive complaint from someone in authority to complain, we should use it but also attempt to contact the Synod with our concerns, as simple good public relations. -- Cecropia 15:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My Two Cents

message: I see we may not come to many conclusions on this matter, so I'm going to ask a copyright expert or two to weigh in. The fellow who put the logo in this time has also contacted the Synod to see what they have to say in the matter. As things develop, I'll report them here and on Talk WP:logos. I'll leave my replies as I see them at this moment above. I think I'll back away from the discussion, then, until experts weigh it. May I suggest that we all look for authoritative sources to address the issue of using images on websites counter the wishes of the copyright holder? --CTSWyneken(talk) 13:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You took the issue to Wikipedia talk:Logos and even tried to change that policy to prevent using images such as this.  You got no support for changing the policy.  It is time to realize that use of this logo here violates no law or Wikipedia policy and that the editorial consensus is that it should stay with the article, just like similar logos on hundreds of other articles here. Johntex\talk 18:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The opinions there are just those of wikipedians. They are not at all legal experts nor did they provide documentation of their viewpoint. I will relay the results of my requests for information when they arrive. I am not going to accept opinions counter all I've been taught on copyright, supported by my citations above, without such documentation or expertise. Are you prepared to produce such? --CTSWyneken(talk) 20:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you weren't prepared to accept the opinions of other Wikipedian's, then why did you seek them out by posting to a policy page?  And why are you saying that you will file an RfC?  The whole point of an RfC is to solicit the opinions of other Wikipedians.  Any outside opinions from supposed legal experts will mean little.  For one thing, there is no practical way for anyone to even validate their credentials.  For another thing, given that you are yourself associated with the church, the people you contact may be attorneys belonging to or even hired by the church and therefore not unbiased in their views.  Thirdly, it is not up to people outside Wikipedia to decide what goes in a Wikipedia article.  Six people on this page along, plus others on the policy page, are all speaking in favor of the logos.  Johntex\talk 20:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another user said he would file the RfC, not I. I am prepared to accept the larger conversation. You are welcome to draw your own conclusions on the replies of copyright law experts, since the post is to the Coalition for Networked Information's Copyright forum. I will include the URLs with the replies. You can then google them, if you choose. In the end, if you all want to force your will and post the logo contrary to the wishes of the LCMS, and perhaps against the opinions (not legal advice) of respected experts, I'll not be able to stop you. At the moment though, given I have a challenge on the image itself and the instructions there are not to use it until the issue is resolved, I'd request you follow that policy. --CTSWyneken(talk) 21:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my mistake.  I misinterpreted your remark and thought it was you filing the RfC.  My question still stands though as to why you are discouting the opinions of several people on this page and at the Talk page for WP:LOGO. Johntex\talk 21:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking Outside Opinions 

message: ====Summary by Johntex====
Logos are primarily protected by trademark law, not copyright law.  In copyright law, the portion of the work being used is an important factor - this is not true in trademark law.  A trademark serves to represent the brand/product/company it stands for.  Using it to represent that product is the whole point of the trademark.  The main legal question is whether the logo is used in an overly disparaging way or a way that is confusing to the consumer/reader.  Their use as part of an educational work is certainly allowed under the law.
Reputable media companies (E.g. Wall Street Journal, USA Today and even Wikipedia) frequently use a logo to represent the brand/product/company represented by the mark.  For Wikipedia examples see IBM or The Walt Disney Company or Altria Group (formerly Phillip Morris) or University of Texas at Austin or Symbols of Scientology.  All of these Wikipedia articles, and hundreds more, use the logos of the subject they discuss.  Wikipedia's legal counsel is certainly aware of the use of these logos and there use is allowed under Wikipedia policy.  These are all potentially litigous organizations.  If there was any real risk to any of them causing us problems over the use of their logos, I can assure you that our legal counsel would not allow us to follow our policy of using these logos.
The permission of the organization who owns the logo means nothing.  There expressed objection, were they to make one (which they have not) would also mean nothing. There are many people/organizations that have articles here that prefer we not even have an article on them, but they don't get to veto having an article here or what that article says about them.  
(Above summary is not meant as legal advice.) Johntex\talk 01:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of argument for use of the Logo Cross 

message: Logos are primarily protected by trademark law, not copyright law.  In copyright law, the portion of the work being used is an important factor - this is not true in trademark law.  A trademark serves to represent the brand/product/company it stands for.  Using it to represent that product is the whole point of the trademark.  The main legal question is whether the logo is used in an overly disparaging way or a way that is confusing to the consumer/reader.  Their use as part of an educational work is certainly allowed under the law.
Reputable media companies (E.g. Wall Street Journal, USA Today and even Wikipedia) frequently use a logo to represent the brand/product/company represented by the mark.  For Wikipedia examples see IBM or The Walt Disney Company or Altria Group (formerly Phillip Morris) or University of Texas at Austin or Symbols of Scientology.  All of these Wikipedia articles, and hundreds more, use the logos of the subject they discuss.  Wikipedia's legal counsel is certainly aware of the use of these logos and there use is allowed under Wikipedia policy.  These are all potentially litigous organizations.  If there was any real risk to any of them causing us problems over the use of their logos, I can assure you that our legal counsel would not allow us to follow our policy of using these logos.
The permission of the organization who owns the logo means nothing.  There expressed objection, were they to make one (which they have not) would also mean nothing. There are many people/organizations that have articles here that prefer we not even have an article on them, but they don't get to veto having an article here or what that article says about them.  
(Above summary is not meant as legal advice.) Johntex\talk 01:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary by Johntex

message: Several copyright experts discussing this issue on CNI-Copyright conclude that the use of the Logo Cross likely does fall under fair use. The main misunderstanding of copyright law on this subject that I had was that few uses beyond educational are fair. I'll concede the issue that it is fair use being convinced by these conversations that it is. The copyright law, it appears, is even muddier than I thought. There still is a chance that the use is not fair, but case law does not indicate that. In other words, some court could rule otherwise, but this is not likwly. I'll incorporate language on the image's page to indicate the four factor comments that emerge from that discussion. --CTSWyneken(talk) 10:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CTSWyneken, thank you for your reporting of what you have learned and for your graciousness about the matter. Johntex\talk 18:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Report on Opinions of Copyright Issues Involving the Logo Cross 

message: Since the LCMS clearly wishes that we ask permission, and since at least one user has asked, we honor their wishes when they respond. Even though we can thumb our noses at them, morally is it is better to honor their wishes when they are expressed. In secular terms, it is always good to build good will. This is especially true since articles on wikipedia do have a tendancy to state negative things about a subject, sometimes legitimately and sometimes not. (witness the new Biographies of living persons policy). So, fellow editors, let's give them a break. --CTSWyneken(talk) 10:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CTSWyneken 

message: :Morally, it is far better to prevent people from using legal threats and purchased copyright laws to prevent content from being used in a fair way. I do not understand what the value is of attempting to build good will with an agent who is attempting to sweep away our rights under fair use. So far, of course, they have not complained about the use of the logo on this page, so it's not clear that they would object. It's not even clear that they would wish us to ask permission. Please do not put words in their mouths. —ptk✰fgs 17:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ptkfgs 

message: :I see both moral arguments here.  I like to extend people extra courtesies when it causes little harm to do so.  For example, I was involved in an argument once about whether someone's mug shot should be used to illustrate the article about them.  It was not a very flattering image, but it was the only one we had and it was clearly legally usable because it was a work by a US govt official which by law was in the public domain.  In that case, we (the editors of the article) were more than willing to remove that image if the subject would have provided one.  However, they refused to provide another image, preferring to insist that we have no photo at all.  I (and the other editors) found that to be unacceptable.  We have a right to report the facts and to use images that are legal to use.  We should accomodate the subject/owner's legitimate request if we can, but we shouldn't make our article less informative because of their wish.  
:Translating to this case, I would say that if the church makes a minor request such as saying "that logo is 2 years old, please use this one instead" or "please make the logo half as big" or "please indicate the logo is used under fair use and that the church does not necesarily condone or refute anything in the article"... any of these things would be reasonable to discuss.  If, however, they ask us to remove the logo, I don't think I would be inclined to grant that.  
:The principle of cooperation is important, but the principle of fair use is also important.  Our main goal is to be as informative as possible to as many people as possible and we should put that first in front of most other concerns (compliance with the law notwithstanding, of course).  Naturally, this is all hypothetical unless/until they protest.  If they do protest, it would likely be a matter for the paid employees of Wikimedia to decide.  Therefore, I see little value to us continuing to discuss hypothetical events that may never occur. Johntex\talk 18:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you both for adding your opinions. For me, the matter is closed here until such time the LCMS comes here to request we do not use the logo. At that point, we should talk about the issue again in the light of WP:LOGOS.--CTSWyneken(talk) 21:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johntex 

message: This is all opinion and not substantiated.  It serves no purpose except as a battleground area.
I suggest that the entire section be deleted.  Thoughts?
Uac1530 02:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal Struggles 

message: It would be nice to add a section here pointing out the differences between the LCMS and ELCA.  The best source to use for this is here:
The Difference between the ELCA and the LCMS
Dulcimerist 08:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with Other Church Bodies