Wikipedia talk:Logos/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: Basically, it is allowing the use of the logo in things like score tables, right? -- ReyBrujo 17:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Hearing no objection, I am putting the clarification into the Guideline. Johntex\talk 17:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed all of those opposing "votes" above?  Jkelly 17:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Coming back to the proposed clarification

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fair use rationales 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks so much for the clarification! -Elizabennet 02:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userboxes 

message: 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)
thread_title: Please come provide your opinion

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vector logos