File talk:Newspapers.jpg

message: There may be a copyright problem with the image.  It is probably considered a derivative work of the copyrighted Haaretz logo, which means you cannot release all of the rights. So we would need to add Template:logo or something similar.  The photo is really nice, BTW. nadav 07:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Nadav. My son added a logo tag (I don't know how to do stuff like that...)
--Gilabrand 07:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With your permission, I am adding text to explain the copyright status. If you have any questions at all in the future, I would be glad to answer them on my talk page.  nadav 08:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I was loosely using "copyright" to refer to intellectual property in general, which includes trademarks. And I find your comment uncivil. nadav 04:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To quote you above, "It is probably considered a derivative work of the copyrighted Haaretz logo" You weren't speaking loosely you were just dead wrong.  There is no such thing as a derivative work of a logo.  jbolden1517Talk 04:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  License 

message: I continue to be baffled by the opinion that an image that prominently displays two trademarks is free. The current free content licenses allow the image to be used for any purpose including commercial uses! Thus if it were really free, I could take this image and use it as the banner of my for-profit newspaper and face no risk of prosecution from Haaretz. But this would be an obvious breach of trademark law, since use of a trademark should "not suggest sponsorship or association with the trademark owner's product or services and therefore is not being used in a manner to confuse the reader." [1]
The Wikipedia:Logos page specifically discusses the use of logos: "However, unlike people, where it is often possible to take a free photograph of that person, logos are typically protected by copyright and/or trademark."  Obviously, the Haaretz nameplate is a logo: it has a distinctive logotype that is closely associated with the paper. It is also used as such on the paper's English and Hebrew sites. The image at hand is in fact being used on the article page in order to illustrate the Haaretz trade dress. How could it possibly be called a free image? nadav 03:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are continuing to confuse copyright law and trademark law.  If you used the letters in "zeta heard" and rearrange them the right way you can violate Haaretz trademark.  That doesn't mean that Haaretz owns the trademark on "zeta heard".  You could use that image as the banner on your newspaper without violating copyright law.  You would however be violating trademark law.  Its your constant refusal to realize that these two aspects of the law are different that makes this confusing.  There is no trademark fair usage because Gila isn't the one who put the Haaretz trademark on those newspapers, Haaretz did.  Thus she never took an action which requires fair usage.  jbolden1517Talk 03:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not talking about copyrights at all. I am only talking about trademarks. Use of the free license implies that the image can be used for any commercial purpose with out encumbrance. It obviously cannot, since doing so would violate trademark fair use since the image prominently incorporates a trademark. (In certain cases, logos can be incorporated into a GFDL image, namely when any use of the image would unquestionably be fair use, e.g. if the image is a parody. However the potential use I gave above shows that it could in fact be confused as being related to Haaretz.)  Your statement "There is no trademark fair usage because Gila isn't the one who put the Haaretz trademark on those newspapers, Haaretz did" does not make sense: They are free to put their trademark on their products, but that doesn't mean I can do whatever I want with their trademark. The "zeta heard" aside is totally irrelavent since in the image we are discussing, the complete Haaretz nameplate is prominently shown without modification to it. nadav 03:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The analogy you give now is excellent. It is exactly what we are debating. The answer to your question is Wikipedia:Logos, which calls for the use of a tag. The IBM logo is located at :Image:IBM logo.png. It has a  tag. That's all I'm talking about. nadav 04:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good glad we are agreeing.  The problem with :Image:IBM logo.png is that's its a derived work, that is it is fair usage.  In my example the IBM logo was an original.  I'll get to wikipedia logos in a second.  But I'm still trying to get you to agree that my logo is GFDL clean under copyright, that is there is no copyright issue for my IBM logo.  Then we'll about wikipedia tags and trademark....  jbolden1517Talk 04:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're starting to understand each other more clearly now. Concerning the GFDL, my current understanding of it (and of course it's possible I'm wrong) is that in order to license something using the GFDL copyright license, it must be free from all obstacles to any type of commercial use, including obstacles stemming from trademark law. I suggest though, that since neither of us are lawyers, we should base our discussion on the wikipedia policies (which could be stronger than the law requires perhaps).  The IBM logo used on Wikipedia looks like a correct application of your analogy, since it is based on an SVG type graphic which probably indicates it was drawn especially for Wikipedia.  In any case, let's not use just one example as a precedent. I suggest we proceed to discussing how Wikipedia:logos relates to your analogy and the image at hand. nadav 05:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 1)I don't know much about the Red Hat distribution, so I can neither agree nor disagree with anything you deduce based on it. 2)Did I say that the IBM logo is copyrightable? No I didn't. You introduced the idea that the logo used on Wikipedia is a derived work. I don't know what you meant by that exactly. All I did was point out that it has a  tag. There is a chance perhaps that the logo passes the threshold of originality for copyright, but sure, if you insist let's stipulate that it is only a trademark. 3) I am trying to base my arguments on the wikipedia guideline. I think that is more helpful, since we are on wikipedia and not in a court of law, and I am not qualified to make legal judgements about the GFDL license.  All I know is that trademarks on Wikipedia should carry the  tag. nadav 21:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on whether the image is free