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

message: First of all, you are misreading FUC#8 when you say that the images must be deleted "if they aren't significant subjects of commentary or identifying specific subjects of discussion." The only requirement of FUC #8 is that they "contribute significantly to the article" and "not serve a purely decorative purpose." Identification and illustration of textual commentary are examples (hence the e.g.) of significant contribution, but are not the only way that an image can contribute significantly. In this case, historical logos contribute significantly to an article about the subject the logos represent, especially one about a visual and ever-changing medium such as television.
Secondly, your reliance on FUC #3 is misplaced. If the purpose of including the logo images was merely identification, then perhaps one image would be sufficient in most cases. (Although this argument could be taken to its logical extreme: zero images are sufficient to identify the station, since a station can be identified merely by its call letters). However, the purpose here is not just to identify, it is to document the history of the station's branding and identity over its lifetime. This encyclopedic purpose cannot be accomplished with a single image.
Third, your insistance that historical logo images may not be used without "significant" "sourced commentary" also does not comport with WP:OR. To quote from this policy:
Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.
In the vast majority of the cases on WP:TVS, the source for the logo is the television station itself, i.e. a primary source. Any commentary (even a single sentence) which is an accurate verifiable description of the logo can be added without the necessity for any other "reliable sources". There isn't (execpt in very rare cases) controversy about what logos television stations used at various times, and "no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" are being made, so there is no need to insist on independent reliable sources.
Additionally, I fail to see any way in which the inclusion of these logos "jeopardize the ability to redistribute Wikipedia's content". For the most part, these are American TV station logos which are validly used under American fair use law. I believe that there is zero chance that an American TV station is going to be suing some content reuser in some foreign country under a more restrictive "fair dealing" law for such a logo used in an encylopedic context (and very little chance they would be sued for using them in any other context, that didn't also violate appropriate trademark law).
Finally, your attempted appeals to authority, citing User:Brad Patrick, User:Jimbo Wales, and the Wikimedia Foundation carry no weight, as none of these people or entities have ever spoken about this specific issue. Your interpretation of policy is not theirs, it is yours alone, and even people who I would think might agree with you haven't joined your campaign to rid Wikipedia of historical TV logos. If Brad or Jimbo or anyone else wants to chime in on this issue, they are welcome to do that themselves. Mind you, even their opinion would count exactly as much as anyone else's, unless they were to issue an edict in their official capacity. DHowell 05:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My answers to [[User:A Man In Black]]'s comments above 

message: This is how I would handle the logo issue:
1.  For the larger articles (generally in the larger markets), I would suggest the option of having the logos (non fair-use) in a logo gallery provided they do not include multiple variants of the same logo (again, unless there was a change of network affiliation; which would also take out many with a version to correlate with a specific image campaign) or to sprinkle the station's previous logos through the article (a la WWOR).
2.  For the mid-size markets, a minimal logo gallery (see non fair-use mention in previous point) would suffice. The same rules apply as they would for a larger market.
Anything smaller than DMA #70 will not receive a logo gallery of any sort.
WAVY 10 18:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't work like that. You don't make up topic-specific rules for each subject based on what sounds nice. We have one set of fair-use rules that apply to all non-free content. Without satisfying those rules, you cannot use non-free content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restating proposal 

message: I notice that nothing has been moving on this issue for several months. In the meantime, a few power-hungry types are hacking away at some very good articles, trying to make them as bland as humanly possible. When I started pulling up a few articles, particularly KTLA and noticed the lack of historic logos, I felt sickened. Particularly since I myself have added historic logos to similar pages. 
Personally, I am strongly against removal of historical logos, particularly those of television stations. I really do think they add a lot to the articles, and are of historical importance. If we can feature logos for all the many corporations and other entities out there, I see absolutely no problem with featuring ones of historic importance. And I think historic logos have more place on articles about television stations than ridiculous listings of every single detail about their newscasts. If the Wikinarcs want to battle something in regard to TV station articles, why not start there? Removing the logos does great harm to these articles. I vote strong keep. Let's get this thing settled once and for all.--Fightingirish 14:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And for the record, I do consider logos to be fair use in this case, particularly since many of these logos are no longer used by their entities, and many of them were created by or for companies that are no longer in business. --Fightingirish 14:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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