Wikipedia talk:Logos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template or project page is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, a project that aims to monitor and reduce non-free content on Wikipedia, prevent copyright infringement, and further our free content mission. If you would like to help, please see the project page for more information.

Shortcut: WT:L

Archives

November 2003 – June 2006 July 2006 – December 2006

Contents 1 Historical logos 2 Logo tags TFD 3 Logoturka.com - Logobank 4 Can logos created by users from scratch be freely licensed? 5 Freely licensed logos 6 SVG logos? 7 Recent edit by anonymous IP/Consensus on SVG images 8 SVG Resolution 9 Trademarks within original creations 10 {{non-free logo}} should be for copyrighted logos only 11 Captions for all Logos 11.1 Promotional association 11.2 Alt-Text already exists 11.3 Captions in infoboxes disrupt formatting 11.4 Infoboxes make logos obvious 12 Alternative template 13 Fair use rationales for logos 14 Educational logos 15 User insists that logo is in public domain 16 Question about logos and userboxes 17 Copyright vs. Trademark 18 Logos in music 19 MonoBook Skin 20 Modifying logos for display? 21 US government logos 22 wikis logo 23 svg logos 24 PD-textlogo 25 Why does this page exist? 26 "All fair-use restrictions apply, but..." 27 Is a photo on a logo a free alternative? 28 Changed to essay 29 Bold and Stupid 30 Are photos with one prominent logo or trademark derivative works?

[edit] Historical logos

Can we get a clarification on the use of historical logos? Some people seem to be saying that historical logos violate fair use unless there is discussion of the logo itself in the article. I say that a historical logo is an identification of the subject of the article at a previous time, and thus is acceptable without any commentary necessary (other than identifying the logo as historical, rather than current). DHowell 23:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

how old? If it's old enough, fair use isnt even an issue, since trademark and copyright protection will have long since expired in every country wikipedia seems to care about for such things. Sparr 10:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

For corporate logos created in the United States, any from before 1923 are in the public domain. Those created between 1923 and 1977 had a copyright term of 28 years, and could have been renewed for another 28 years, but the onus was on the copyright holder to have done so. Beginning January 1, 1978, the copyright is a single term expiring 95 years from first publication. However, when Congress modified the copyright law, they extended current copyright protections back to 1964, but only for works with a copyright notice.

This is my understanding for historical (no longer in use) logos from the United States as they apply to Wikipedia: any such logo created more than 56 years ago is in the public domain. Old logos still in use (eg. CBS Eye logo) should still bear a trademark tag and be treated as non-free. As most logos are used for a relatively short duration, for those created prior to 1964, their original copyright has expired, and it is unlikely that the copyright was renewed. For logos created between 1964 and 1977, copyrights were extended only if a copyright notice accompanies the logo, not the case with the overwhelming majority of logos. Therefore, it is my belief that with the exception of logos with a copyright notice, historical logos created before January 1, 1978 are in the public domain, and the licensing for these should be changed to public domain. Logos created since 1978 are covered under current U.S. Copyright Law, and are clearly non-free for 95 years after publication.

My information comes from the Cornell Copyright and Public Domain page and from the Non-free content guideline. I invite all comments, confirmations and criticisms (with which I reserve the right to disagree). dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Logo tags TFD

A number of logo tags have been nominated for deletion. Please see Template:Zoo logos and other to help build a consensus on the best way to manage fair use logo templates. Thank you. BigDT 20:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logoturka.com - Logobank

Vectorel company logotypies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.99.157.19 (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Can logos created by users from scratch be freely licensed?

For example: Image:Weston logo.png.

Another one: Can logotypes created by a user from scratch derived from descriptions and/or logos be not copyrighted, and hence by freely licensed? An example: Image:DLSU M Logotype.png. --Howard the Duck 12:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to raise this question. The practice has become widespread, with minor examples such as Image:CMWYSlogo.png, as well as very prolific instances such as Image:The Godfather.png. –Unint 02:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I gave a full answer here. Short answer: no. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freely licensed logos

What should be done about logos that can be proven to be licensed under a free license like the GPL? One example is Image:GPLLinksysLogo.png, which I uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons along with a proof that it is a GPL'd logo. Should this policy be updated to handle logos where freely licensed logos can be found? Jesse Viviano 06:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No response on this one. Maybe because your question is unclear. Can you please be more specific in what you are proposing?↔NMajdan•talk 14:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Jesse is asking one or more of the following:

• The guideline says to assume all logos are copyrighted; however, what if proof can be found that the logo is indeed public domain?
• What if a PD version of a logo can be found? Should it be preferred over non-PD versions, like other images are?

• If so, should extremely outdated logos be exempt from this guideline?

• If the answer is yes to these questions, shouldn't that information be in this guideline?

My own personal answer, if you haven't guessed, is Yes to all the above.

-- trlkly 05:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SVG logos?

The template states that logos should only be in low resolution to qualify as fair use; WP:LOGO states that logos should not be in SVG format. However, there are numerous (fair-use tagged) logos in [[Category:Images which should be in SVG format]]. Should the {{SVG}} tag be removed from these logos? (This would also help clear a little of the backlog from IWSBISF.) Stannered 13:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think they should as well. SVG images can be rendered into any size, including sizes that would violate Wikipedia's terms of Fair Use. So, yes, I believe the request for logos to be converted to SVG should be denied. This also might be a good question to ask at WT:FU.↔NMajdan•talk 14:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think not having SVG logos amounts to copyright paranoia. Logos will always be trademarked and copyrighted. This will never change and free versions will never be available. Fair use actually should only be applied to photographs, where there is commercial gain to be sought from high quality photos, not corporate logos which are heavily protected by laws. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree, although I don't have much of a backround in copyright law. Surely this statement:

"Overly high-resolution versions of logos should be avoided, however, as they are less likely to be fair use. Do not use SVG formats, as this can infringe on fair use. However, if vector artwork is available, they can be rasterized to a screen-resolution PNG format."

on the project page must have been put there for a reason? All logos are copyrighted, and unlicensed copyrighted content can only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use, no? Stannered 16:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference how fair use is applied. One is for photographs, where the fair use criteria makes sense. (We are borrowing content which is used only for illustrative purposes). Photographs taken are by default copyrighted. Logos on the other hand are not only copyrighted, but also trademarked. So, if you're using a 60x60 px logo, or a 600x600 px logo, the outcome is the same: You cannot use it for commercial gain or misrepresentation of the company. I don't think flags, emblems and seals are too different from logos. Yet, we have no problems with svg flags etc. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The only SVG flags I've seen have been marked as some kind of Public Domain; or licensed by the creator of the file. I've had less to do with emblems and seals, but from what I've seen there, I think the same problem as with logos exists. Stannered 20:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The main purpose for the "low resolution" wording is to address the fourth clause of US fair use law... whether the image can be used as a direct substitute for the work (and particularly with things like piracy, whether we have high enough resolution images to assist pirates in printing up DVD covers that look like convincingly close versions of the real thing). "Resolution" is something that applies to raster images only... the analogous equivalent in SVG's is whether the image is detailed enough to be printed out at high resolution, NOT whether it can be resized to arbitrary resolution (because, indeed, raster images can similarly be resized to any resolution, and particularly raster images that contain only straight lines, such as flags, can be trivially resized to any resolution without loss of detail). For normal fair use SVG's, I usually recommend that the way to comply with our fair-use standards is to make sure the SVG isn't overly detailed, and if it is, to use something like Inkscape's "Simplify" command (it can be used multiple times to greater effect). For logos however, we also have the suggestion that they be "accurate and have a high-quality appearance". The best way to comply with both is to make sure that an SVG has enough detail to be rendered at the (small) resolution the logo will be used in the desired article or articles, but not significantly more detail. In some cases though, some logos are so simple to begin with (eg. the Nike Swoosh) that it's not possibly to simplify it without distorting it (but the same thing is true for the raster version too.... a moderately sophisticated image scaler could resize a raster version to any size without loss of detail). --Interiot 18:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to jump in the discussion late. I added the "Do not use SVG formats" clause quoted above by Stannered simply because it is unnecessary to have vector artwork of copyrighted material. I added this clause after some other users had concerns for logos I uploaded in SVG format (this page previously made no mention about SVGs, in particular). So I rasterized the vector logos into a good-enough resolution PNG and uploaded those instead. Although I do advocate the use of SVG formats for simple graphics, such as logos, this license is for copyrighted fair use logos which is respected using low resolution (e.g., non-vector). True, some ©logos on WP are in SVG, and several have compatible licenses to allow this (example), but others don't. For what it's worth, it is probably best to be safe and not encourage SVGs for these logos. Just because someone has a vector artwork of logo X doesn't mean that it should be here. Wikipedia is not an archive for high quality logos. Hey, even the Wikipedia logo made by Nohat isn't available as an SVG (as far as I know at least). Regarding Interiot's opinion and recent edit to the front page, this clause was reworded slightly. I really don't think it is necessary to be SVG obsessed on ©logos, so I think it was appropriate to flat out state "do not use SVG formats". It's completely unnecessary, since great quality screen quality can be presented using PNG formats with much less risk. I'll revert back to that, unless anyone has any valid objections or amendments. +mwtoews 01:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's appropriate to discourage people from spending very much time at all converting between various formats. It's appropriate to mention that time spent is more or less wasted because all the work in the world doesn't make the image free or usable by others. But it's not appropriate to say flat out that vector formats aren't allowed. There's no risk. Vector images are just another imperfect mathematical representation of photons flying through the air, no different from raster images. --Interiot 00:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I see what your saying, and I also think SVG images are great (I've submitted several myself, some of which were copyright logos and are now deleted and replaced with PNG versions). However the risk SVG versions of copyrighted logos bears is that they may potentially represent a perfect reproduction of the material. It is always safer to tread on something that is imperfect, and personally I'd rather have that imperfection be in the form of a good-quality rasterized logo rather than simplified logo (which could potentially look worse than a rasterized version of the original). Rather than detailing the fine-line of rasterized vs imperfect SVGs, it might be easier to simply say "no SVGs", unless the logo license is compatible or permission is granted from the copyright holder (or perhaps some other clauses .. please fill me in). Do these amendments seem like a better route? From a technical standpoint, although it may sadden SVG enthusiasts to see "no SVGs", a 200px wide PNG loads pretty fast and does not take up much memory, and can even have a smaller file size in situations where the vector format is overly detailed. Furthermore, I don't think there is any need for these logos to scale to large sizes on Wikipedia, so a 200px PNG should be good enough to illustrate the logo of company X. +mwtoews 05:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't already, take a look at Template talk:ShouldBeSVG, where we've had a big discussion of this issue. Stannered 09:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edit by anonymous IP/Consensus on SVG images

Although there's been no specific consensus on the use of SVG logos, both the historical Wikipedia:Fair use/ Definition of "low resolution" and Wikipedia:Fair use state that "Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). This includes the original in the Image: namespace." SVG images are arbitrarily high resolution, so are clearly at odds with this consensus. Stannered 19:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SVG Resolution

In my understanding of vector images, SVG files do not have a resolution. Therefore, it is impossible that they are ever too high resolution to be of fair use. They could be outputted in a resolution that is too high, but then it is the responsibility of the person adding the image to the article to use an acceptable size. Also, there are many simple text-based logos that would be more efficiently stored in a vector file as opposed to a raster one. -KingpinE7 03:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember we were removing all SVG logos because they are a breach of our criteria: SVG don't have resolution, thus allowing high-quality high-resolution images from being created, when we explicitly request images to be of low-resolution. It could be said that, in example, showing a small thumbnail for an image and linking it to a 7MB image. -- ReyBrujo 20:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trademarks within original creations

Should the {{non-free logo}} tag and a fair-use rationale be used for original works that contain prominently displayed trademarks? There is a dispute between me and another editor about this issue at Image:Newspapers.jpg. I suppose this may relate to the "Can logos created by users from scratch be freely licensed?" discussion above. nadav 20:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Both Nadav and I agreed that this guideline should mention the trademark template. I've added the information here. jbolden1517^Talk 00:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{non-free logo}} should be for copyrighted logos only

I've noticed that the {{non-free logo}} tag has been used on federal government logos (1) and on simple text logotypes (2) that are ineligible for copyright. To prevent free images from being tagged as non-free, I added the word copyrighted to the guideline for using the template. For when logos that are definitely not copyrighted, we have the {{Trademark}} tag, as jbolden1517 said above. nadav 02:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we elaborate on this? I would like to upload a county seal, but all the ones I am seeing use the {{non-free logo}} template. That doesn't seem correct to me either, but the last section of the Logos article seems to state that U.S. government logos might be completely prohibited for reproduction without consent? I think the original poster was on the right track here, these images shouldn't be eligible for copyright.--Inarius 18:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Counties are not the federal government. The choice of template depends on whether the copyright has expired, for example life of author + 70 years. County seals may be heraldic, in which case a more free version can be made using the blazon, though its use may be restricted by heraldic and trademark law, or a specific law (such as anti-fraud) in your jurisdiction. Wikipedia volunteers often make and donate such free heraldic images. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Captions for all Logos

Presently under discussion again here:

• Wikipedia talk:Captions#Logo captions

Previous discussions:

• Wikipedia talk:Logos/Archive 1#Caption guidelines for logos
• Wikipedia talk:Logos/Archive 1#another commonsense guideline

There seems to be a lot of resistance to simply captioning logos, always pointing to the "Special situations" exception on the captions style guideline, but there is no indication that the exception was ever arrived at via consensus. The only reasoning I have read against captions is that they are "ugly", whereas the current logo guideline here, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and policy support captions: WP:NPOV#Bias - commercial; WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation - assert facts; WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone - selection & organization of facts. Please provide your input there.--In1984 22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% that they should always be captioned to prevent any trademark problems. However, I reverted the additional requirement about non-logo material being explicitly identified since it is not sufficiently clear. For example, there are many pictures of logos in their natural environments (e.g. a picture of a university banner waving, a picture of a newspaper page that focuses on the nameplate, a picture of the symbol on an automobile). All these cases have nothing remarkable about their non-logo material and there is no special reason I can see to point it out in a caption. Also there are many freely licensed images that have small logos contained in them somewhere as part of the background, and this may confuse people into thinking the photos aren't free. Perhaps if this was clarified first, then it could be added. nadav (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the The caption should identify any non-logo material. to the last line before trademark law which states: Logos that contain slogans should be omitted in favour of equivalent logos that do not. Navdav1 undid it suggesting discussion. When a logo without a slogan or some other non-logo material is unavailable, how should it be captioned? My preference is to identify the part that is not the logo such as I did with McDonald's. The question seems to be how to phrase that in the guideline.--In1984 23:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the general case. In the particular case of the mcdonalds logo, I suggest the slogan be removed so it more closely follows the guideline. You could either modify the image directly, or perhaps replace it with [1] or the image [2]. nadav (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, the issue I have with the addition of this provisions is that it undermines the point of the use of infoboxes in the use of articles. The conceptual ideal of an infobox would be to give the reader the conceptual view of information about a certain subject including logo's, for example. The use of the logo or presentation of information in that area already explains its use and relation to the product in large. If anything, some infoboxes include image descriptions (example) which present as a small, italic font underneath the image use, which could be implemented if the need for descriptions around logos in infoboxes becomes a requirement. The use of caption boxes around images within infoboxes doesn't appear right and seems an overuse of the function, using a box within another box to show information already lead to in the first box itself. Otherwise, the use of captions around logo's not used in infoboxes (example) is something I agree with to create a clear understand of the use of the image. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 00:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I was interpreting "captions" to include the italicised labels you refer to. If this wasn't clear, then I suggest the wording of the guideline be changed to make it so. nadav (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris, I agree it is not as pretty as the infobox Television solution you link to, and I would definitely prefer that. If someone is a template expert here that can make the adjustment to the existing Infobox_Company, I will certainly support it and use it. Until then, the less elegant way is all that is available.--In1984 02:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The use doesn't even seem to follow any sort of flow, which many other elements on this site do. In the current moment, I still can't believe we have reached a consensus on the issue in large, the three or four of us here isn't one. Please, let's wait and try to get an actual discussion on this issue before anyone goes stream rolling through every infobox featuring page. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 02:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added a caption to the Template:Infobox Company template. However, it seems to only appear when the logo attribute is used instead of the deprecated company_logo. I don't know how to fix it. nadav (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will use it where it works.--In1984 02:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. It looks like it was working. Does McDonald's look ok now? nadav (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like it works for company_logo, but not for logo. I was hoping for a caption line, but that works as a quick fix that can be quickly removed just as fast if need be.--In1984 03:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris, actually, the archives here and this guideline page indicate there was already a consensus for captions. It appears to have forked and subverted via the Wikipedia:Captions guideline. Policy still takes priority over both, and even the the few clearly agreed upon elements of the Captions guideline agree that there need to be captions: Wikipedia:Captions#Clear_identification_of_the_subject, Wikipedia:Captions#Establishing_relevance_to_the_article, Wikipedia:Captions#Providing_context_for_the_picture.--In1984 02:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The new captions are horrible. The point of using a caption is to say "we're showing you what the logo looks like, not claiming their endorsement" but the caption that was used just sticks a disclaimer under it, violating WP:ASR and every rule of caption writing on wikipedia that says to be descriptive.Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No objection. As to formatting, it appears that removing the "center", "right", etc. from the Image line takes care of the problem with the caption having an entire line between it and the image.--In1984 03:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just trying to add a caption; I wasn't thinking about the wording. You don't have to go out of your way to denounce it as horrible. I agree that your version is much better. nadav (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I hardly see a consensus for this issue to add captions to all logo's on Wikipedia. After reading through past discussions there are only 3 or 4 Wikipedians proposing captions. This is not a minor change and this will affect the majority of articles on Wikipedia. I therefore suggest a longer timeframe for discussion, with more participants, at a more visible location. Please do not implement any changes without first gaining a large consensus, as this is an issue that will require more than a week of discussion. Please keep in mind that alt tags have been in use for years that are providing the same information. Stickeylabel 06:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

People, this is not how things are done. Those attempting to implement this "caption" should cease as per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:POINT. Your changes are disputed, you should of proposed this at the pump, etc. I personally think it's silly and needless. Matthew 06:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. I did not realize this was controversial, and will support any consensus-building efforts. Personally, I support captioning logos to lessen the chance of trademark fair-use violations, namely the potential that companies are somehow associated with wikipedia in some way. Since our copyright fair-use policy is quite strict for the many legal reasons, it seems natural to be cautious about trademarks too. nadav (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC) I've listed this proposal at the village pump policy page nadav (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I would support this as "captions for all logos not in an infobox", but captioning a logo that is already in an infobox with anything more than the company name simply disrupts the formatting with no benefit. Besides, the infobox provides both the proposed frame and gives the image descriptive context already. --tjstrf talk 07:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that all trademarked logos in infoboxes on wikipedia are there under WP:FU, and that captions of logos are already available via alt tags. Any trademarked logo that violates fair-use should be immediatley removed, however any logos that comply with fair-use should be added and retained in infoboxes without the need for captioning. This proposition is redundant, and serves no practical purpose that is not already in use. Stickeylabel 07:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NONFREE is unrelated, since it concerns the allowed usage copyrighted material (which is the normal meaning of the phrase "fair use"). The issue with trademarks is preventing the semblance of endorsement by or any connection with the company. nadav (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted) As a new page patroller and WP:COIN observer, I constantly see people putting up promotional company pages that often use the infobox template. These pages could easily appear to indicate that Wikipedia is somehow associated with, endorses, or is endorsed by, these companies. People put up pages without thinking about how they appear to someone who doesn't know better, and we should be very careful that templates don't help promote this false association for the legal reasons involved. nadav (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for captions, the logos speak for themselves. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 08:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This short comment doesn't address the issues I raised. Can you expand it please? nadav (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that the whole point the logo is there is to describe the company and its identity, writing captions is just doubling up. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 08:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to add some subheaders to address specific issues raised for and against using captions on all logos. This is to avoid wandering and rambling responses and to deal with each issue specifically, then each can be either crossed off, accepted, or left open accordingly.

[edit] Promotional association

I agree with Nadav that the main reason to caption all logos is to avoid being confused with promotional material. Nadav takes a legal view of it. My view is that it conflicts WP:NPOV. Advertisements and other promotions never identify logos as logos or slogans as slogans. That's to the company's advantage. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not an advertisement. See above for links to specific parts of NPOV policy.--In1984 08:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that all visiters to Wikipedia clearly understand that it is a Free Encyclopedia, through various information including the subheading From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Also, if an article is written in a promotional way we should target that issue, not this. Wikipedia readers do understand that this is a non-profit encyclopia, and is not a promotional website or an advertisement, through the reasons mentioned prior. Stickeylabel 08:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

All the more reason to make sure that promotional devices per NPOV:tone do not sneak in. If readers assume no promotions, they are that much more susceptible to being influenced when there is in fact promotion. Non-profit carries considerable weight with it and the companies/products described should not be able to abuse it.--In1984 08:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) This doesn't address the problem that people could still think assume the project somehow endorses or is endorsed by the subjects of the article. If you are unfamiliar with wikipedia and just click on a google link and then arrive at a page with a big infobox, prominent logo, and little explanatory text, then you would have good reason to assume it's affiliated with the company. Adding a caption to the template is a minimal change that will help alleviate this potential source of legal problems for Wikipedia. nadav (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree with this assessment: a few days ago a well-meaning but misguided person attempted to tag a number of logos for deletion because they were unfree & possible copyright/trademark infringements. (And that was what the notice on WP:AN/I stated this conversation was about.) We need to flag these logos as trademarked or copyrighted by their respective corporations or organizations with some kind of legal incantation (e.g., "Use of this logo is meant only for identification and not meant to infringe on the rights of its owner"). And we need to decide if this will be done in the article they appear in (either visibly, say in the caption, or in the markup code), as part of the text of the image page, or as a line on the "upload file" or edit page. Unfortunately, this is the only place where even part of this discussion is underway. -- llywrch 15:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Logos are already adequately marked as trademarked in their respective image pages (see Image:NBC logo.svg). I do not see a need for captions in infoboxes, as there is already adequate information for visiters to Wikipedia that clearly allows them to understand that we are not a promotional website. And all logos should contain clear information through their alt-text, their image pages, and the heading at the top of templates. I therefore do not see a need, or a concensus, that states otherwise. Stickeylabel 22:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I oppose captioning logos. I understand the argument that we need to make it clear the article is not an endorsement, but I think captioning the logo is unnecessary, and doesn't serve that purpose. First, the fact that this is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is already shown twice to users (in text and logo format). Second, to a new user, seeing text stating that the above picture is a logo, would seem redundant, and would not in any way make me understand the NPOV of the article. Couldn't you say the same thing about providing a link to the company website under External Links? Is that an endorsement? Of course not. And with logos how far would you go? Why not caption Corporate Logo. Not an endorsement? The real heart of the issue should be the tone of the article itself. If it reads like an advertisement, that's a problem and should be tagged/fixed. That has 100x more impact on a new users' perception of the advertising/NPOV problem. --Bill.matthews 01:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it says "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" is exactly the reason people could mistakenly believe there is a connection between Wikipedia and these companies. About external links: You are exactly right. That is the reason why companies often explicitly mark links as external to prevent the problem, and we of course do the same through the use of a special icon for them and through placing them in an "external links" section. I don't understand your slippery slope argument. About NPOV: yes that is an important problem which we already address, but it is not inherently related to trademark problems. Moreover, this is such a miniscule change that even if it helps with the legal issues just a little, it is still worth it. nadav (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, please do some research to back up your claims. Please do not make unsubstantiated claims that say: people do not understand wikipedia is a free non-profit encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a strong international brand that is used frequently in the media and on television shows. Also, the use of captions will not solve the issues you present. Your proposal will not bombard the free encyclopedia motto anymore than it already is. If you believe the subheading of article name's that state From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia has an adverse effect by affiliating wikipedia with a commercial organisation, please correct that issue. There has been no precedent to warrant any changes, and there have been no complaints for trademark violations with regards to the lack of captioning. It can therefore be seen that the introduction of logo captions is redundant and unnessassary, and the only purpose it will provide is to lengthen the already long infoboxes on the majority of articles at wikipedia. Stickeylabel 09:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You are making assumptions. From an article cited in a recent Signpost:

Like many "great" ideas, however, this one too fell apart immediately upon contact with the real world. I had naively assumed that my students would be aware of Wikipedia's existence, if not well-informed about its pitfalls. But a survey of the class at our first meeting revealed that only 7 of the 28 students present knew what Wikipedia was, and even these seven offered varied responses to my questions (one student memorably called it a "liberal informative encyclopedia on the internet"; another opined that it was "not fully true"). Faced with this shocking lack of exposure, I knew I had to modify my brilliant assignment plan.

[3] nadav (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

But what use is a survey of only 28 students? Students account only a certain percentage of the Wikipedia readership and from this control group, it seems too small to make conclusions, especially since it is from one class in one location. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 11:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would expect a sample of college students to favor knowledge of Wikipedia. However, I will concede this was nonscientific, but it does show no reason to expect people will already know how Wikipedia works and that it's non-profit. nadav (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree Trisreed, a survey out of 28 students hardly constitutes any conclusions towards the worlds knowledge of the existance of wikipedia. I do understand the reasoning for this proposition, however I do not agree with the methods proposed. Again, there have been no precedents to warrant any changes, and there have been no complaints for trademark violations on wikipedia with regards to the lack of captioning. I suggest that instead of consuming the time and efforts of individuals in this discussion, we should all target the real issues behind this proposition, i.e. spam, looking for articles that are not written in a formal tone, as well as violations of fair-use, copyright and trademarks. Stickeylabel 11:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I'll see what other people have to say, but I'll attend to other stuff now. nadav (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I also agree Trisreed. I think those are the important issues, not logo captions. But to use that student example, if you took a sample of people and showed them an article like PepsiCo, with and without the logo captioned, I doubt they would have different perceptions of the article's purpose, POV, etc. --Bill.matthews 14:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The general idea here is instead of having a giant logo branding the page, we have small logo cordoned off with explanatory text to make clear that it is an object to study and not there for the sake of it. It's the same reason we put block quotes in smaller font and indentation: so the reader doesn't take them at face value and doesn't confuse them with the article itself. nadav (talk) 08:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Navdav1's test is more significant than the assumptions in the rebuttal, which have no test data to support them. Yes, the sample is relatively small, but it is larger than the cumulative test sample of the 3 that replied. It is also worth noting that those were college students, whereas Wikipedia is being provided to far less informed elementary, middle, and high school students: "non-commercial" schools DVD (which includes, at a minimum, Sony, Microsoft, Royal Dutch Shell, and British Petroleum - minus the logo images "because of licensing restrictions").--In1984 08:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

TV results for fake news indicate companies are eager to put the appearance of news or knowledge on what is in fact advertising. More, not less, labeling and notifications have been recommended: PR watch report on fake news. Do we need to further encourage companies to pay editors to abuse WP's encyclopedic presence the way they have with paid bloggers[4] [5] [6] [7] [8]?--In1984 08:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alt-Text already exists

Actually, it only does half the time at best, both in and out of infoboxes, and it is invisible unless the logo is specifically hovered over. Nor can one click on a logo link to understand what the point of the logo is. So alt-text is not a reliable or educational reason to refuse captions, nor is it controllable. Set captions in infobox templates provide a consistent caption across all like companies/products. No company can gain advantage by adjusting their normally invisible alt-text by loading it with key words and spam links.--In1984 08:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Alt text is reliable and has been common practise for years. Alt text is also controllable through the use of coding in the infobox template. If a company does spam articles, then that is the issue we must tackle. This is not a solution, as key words and spam will always be an issue for articles, regardless of captioning. I think our time would be better spent cracking down on spam, as apposed to this untargeted and redundant solution. Also images do have summaries of which contain information for their usage, and their copyright details. Stickeylabel 08:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Further expanding my above comment, I would agree with Stickeylabel as he sums up the issue in the Alt-Text manner. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 08:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Assuming for the sake of argument that spam/bombing is going to exist anyway, alt-text is still not used consistently in the various logos and infoboxes. Some logos have none. Some do. Doing a quick review of the biggest companies showed no consistency in use.--In1984 08:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know alt-text is routinely used. Even if it is, then it is of course invisible and we cannot expect the user to hover his mouse over it or do whatever it is that makes it appear. nadav (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have already proposed centralised alt-text, so that all logos within a certain infobox all contain a similar prefix. Also, why do we assume that viewers can scroll in an article, or if they can actually click links in an article, or if they can actually read English. We assume these facts, because one must be computer literate to be able to turn on a computer let alone access the internet. Your asssumptions seem to favor your argument whilst dismissing similar assumptions. Stickeylabel 09:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why assume they need descriptors on the side for the other information? Why not assume they can hover over every word and location? The caption is nothing more than another descriptor, appearing under instead of at the side, although I would not object to a template designed to have "Company logo" appear to the side of the logo.--In1984 09:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As a follow-up test of the alt-text claim, I checked each company in the Don Jones Industrial Average - Template:DJIA. 18 of the 30 had alt-text. The companies are listed in the template and you can click and verify for yourself. In addition, Sony, a huge and well known company, and part of another relativley small list of companies Template:Japanese_Electronics_Industry, has no alt-text.--In1984 00:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Captions in infoboxes disrupt formatting

The "ugly" argument. No disruption actually occurs. It remains clear and readable, simply not as elegant and seemless. In addition, this is only true if the "thumb" approach is taken. Using templates, the caption can be added very smoothly without adding additional lines/boxes around the logo. Consider this example of Template:Infobox Television as used for Fox News Live. It uses a definable caption line within the infobox. Or this, WABC (AM), which uses the Template:Infobox Radio Station and defines the caption within the template. Neither added any additional boxes or disrupt the formatting any more than the (redundant) company name or the various descriptors that appear on the side for each item.--In1984 08:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infoboxes make logos obvious

If that were the case, why bother with any of the descriptors? All of it should be self evident. Remove owner, location, headquarters, Web site, everything. All of it is already made clear by the existance of the shaded box.--In1984 08:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Owner, Location, Headquarters, Website etc, explain actual information relating to the article. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to give out information. A logo has both alt-tags and summaries within the image page. This is common practise, and has never been an issue in the past. Your statements are highly redundant, and are like saying "Why don't we hyperlink every single word in an article to its respective wiktionary page?". Stickeylabel 08:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that argument is like claiming why not hyperlink every word. That is the equivalent of what suggesting that alt-text and an image link is enough. Why not include hidden text and a link for every word/phrase? Because a simple descriptor, for the logo like the other information, helps to quickly give out that information.--In1984 09:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Then why not caption every word in an article? Please do not make assumptions without factual basis to back them up. Stickeylabel 09:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why bother having a rule to caption them when not in infoboxes then? Logos only identify themselves if the reader is already aware that it is the logo. Is the encyclopedia to help inform the reader or here to just assume the reader already knows all? If the latter, why bother having an encyclopedia at all?--In1984 09:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop duplicating similar headings (i.e. Wikipedia talk:Logos#Infoboxes make logos obvious and Wikipedia talk:Logos#Logos speak for themselves) to compensate for a lack of factual substance. Logo's are already directly linked to their respective product or company with the heading placed above. Logos also have alt-text, as well as extensive summaries on their image page. Stickeylabel 09:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a separate argument posed above on this very page, that's why the separate heading. It mentioned nothing about infoboxes being the identifying factor. Alt-text does not automatically appear like other information descriptors do. Having a caption, like a descriptor, actually does speak for what the information is.--In1984 09:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative template

I did an test alternative logo template at User:Soman/test-template. The idea would be that the template could added as {{test-template|name of organization}}, and the variable of 'name of organization' would appear in the template, identitying exactly which organization's logos is portrayed and that the article is only fair use in that specific article. Thus it would be possible to discovered non-fair use by bots. --Soman 19:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I recommend you seek the counsel of User:Betacommand, who has gained quite the reputation as the Wikipedia fair use enforcer for logos. Also, the best place for discussing new copyright tags is Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. nadav (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationales for logos

I'm searching for an example of a logo with a fair use rationale. The bot that shall not be named keeps on tagging logos, and well, what's the proper course of action?  Grue  08:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You can read through Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline for some general suggestions. Seraphimblade gives an example of a good rationale for the specific case of logos on the guideline's talkpage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadav1 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Educational logos

Is there a discussion or article anywhere that specifically addresses fair use of Public and/or private university school and athletics logos? It seems to me that the use would be more broad that than of a corporate logo, as the public school logos are created by state or federal entities. --Longman391 07:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User insists that logo is in public domain

I changed Image:SNES logo.svg from a public domain license to a non-free logo license. As soon as I did so, the user reverted the edit and put it back in public domain, and insisted that it is in public domain. I don't want to start and edit war here, so wanted to resolve the dispute otherwise. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I addressed the concern at [9]. The creator of the SVG image may have some rights to the image, but I am reasonably certain that he doesn't. nadav (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about logos and userboxes

I know that we can't use non-free images (including logos) in userboxes, but I've got a nitpicky loophole-type question. Currently, Image:Buj-logo.jpg cannot be used in the userbox for the martial art, but could an image of the kanji by themselves be used? Thanks! Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps, if they do not look too much like the logo. If you free-hand draw the kanji (so they are not pixel-by-pixel duplicates of the logo) that would help a lot. At the end of the day what matters is how similar the two are and whether there is a likelihood of confusion between the two. That is difficult to discuss ahead of time without having something to actually compare. Johntex\^talk 01:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I had planned on either hand-drawing the kanji or using a word processing program with a Japanese text to create them. Sometime soon, I'll get this done and make an image for comparison. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright vs. Trademark

There seems to be a big issue here on both Wikipedia and Commons, where users are confusing copyright versus trademark. This has been an issue with many logos, which cannot be copyrighted due to their simplicity, but are subject to trademark laws. For example, Image:Mbta-logo.svg cannot be copyrighted because it merely consists of the letter "T" inside a circle. An editor has been confusing copyright with trademark, and has since added a copyright image tag (in addition to the public domain tag), and now the image is listed for deletion. I don't want to start an edit war over this, or any other image, but it is certain that editors need to establish the difference between copyright and trademark, and know when to use {{Trademark}} and {{PD-ineligible}} on image pages. There is no detailed explanation about this at WP:LOGOS, and I think that a statement should be instated somewhere. I also think that a {{PD-logo}} should be created to help users understand this concept a little bit better. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

{{PD-textlogo}} should be created instead, to (1) match the Commons name, and (2) to place this notice about the copyright and trademark difference. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 21:35, 19 November 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Logos in music

There is currently a discussion at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist#Logos on the use of graphic logos of musicians and bands, more specifically in the respective infoboxes, but also within articles in general. Among other things, the threshold for inclusion has been debated and given that this guideline largely applies, some additional input would be welcome. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MonoBook Skin

I was surfing through Wikipedia on different languages, and I noticed that the French Wikipedia's logo in the upper left corner was anti-aliased. The crappy aliased white outline around the logo in the corner on the English version has always bothered me and I was wondering how/if it could be changed. Tkgd2007 (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You want to ask at Image talk:Wiki.png. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Modifying logos for display?

It seems like common sense to me that if a digital version of a logo is available, that should always be used without modifications. By this I don't mean it might not be appropriate to crop it, or maybe add annotations, etc., but it should surely not be visually changed in any way. But that seems not to be mentioned here, except for resizing. For a concrete example, I just reverted User:SmileyBarry's modification of the logo on Portal (game), in which he removed the background from the image, removed the "TM", and vectorized it. I don't think I'm alone in seeing this as incorrect, but this page doesn't seem to say anything either way.

Actually, I would think it would be sensible to never vectorize logos either, unless they're extremely simple and the resulting logo appears visually identical to the original ― in that if you flip back and forth between the two images in your browser in the same place on the screen, you'll notice no difference. This could happen for logos that consist only of very simple figures in solid colors. But anything that involves, for instance, a custom font or any reasonably complicated shape will change if you vectorize it, for instance with curves changing their directions slightly and so on. It seems to me like anything presented as an official logo should be left exactly as the logo's owner distributes it. Otherwise we're misrepresenting it.

What are people's thoughts on this? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Just for the record, I took an existing vectorization and "cropped" the 16px text from it. It originally did not include "TM", however, I can add it in a second. And now for my reply. I think we should vectorize most logos to present them in the clearest way possible, take less bandwidth and less processing power. In addition, almost the entire world uses supported browsers, like Safari and Mozilla Firefox. I think we should continue to use them, and regarding your thought the original logo and vectorized image should be identical, Wikipedians are enforcing this as previously, a vectorized Steam logo currently existing in the German Wikipedia, was suggested to replace the current logo. However, several hard-to-notice flaws have stopped this. And, I too think if the vectorized image is not completely identical it shouldn't be switched with the original, however, today's tools like InkScape, Adobe Illustrator and even VectorMagic allow precise vetorization with a loss of under 1%. In addition, complex fonts are not an issue with vectorized graphics, as everything is rendered through geometric shapes.

Hope this big reply is good enough!

-Smiley Barry ^{[USER] [TALK] [SL]} 13:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside the issue of the particular logo, which I'll respond to at Talk:Portal (video game):

• Assuming logos are being displayed at a relatively low resolution in any case, which they are for fair use reasons, a vectorized image is usually not going to be clearer than a non-vectorized one. (JPEG artifacting, in particular, can probably be removed by just finding a PNG original; if one is not provided, again, it's not our business to make one.) It's true that this rationale breaks down for a hypothetical printed article, where a vectorized version would be an advantage, but such an article would require manual editing of the page to get the vector image to display instead of the rasterized version anyway.
• There is no issue of taking less bandwidth or processing power. It certainly makes no appreciable difference to the servers, and users receive the same image either way: a rasterized PNG.
• It's just not true that almost the entire world uses supported browsers like Safari and Firefox; or if it is, it's irrelevant, because a very large percentage of the English Wikipedia's viewers do not, they use Internet Explorer. Even if that weren't the case, it makes no difference, because the SVGs are rasterized for display anyway, and in fact there's not even an option at present in MediaWiki to serve actual SVGs instead of rasterized versions (bug 3593http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3593).

Now, if the images actually are really and truly the same (to within ordinary perception) at the displayed resolution, I don't see any real advantage or disadvantage. But if that's the justification, IMO, a side-by-side comparison is warranted before the vector image is used, if it's perceived that there's any justification for using it.

Aside from the whole issue of vector images, things like removing backgrounds should definitely not be allowed. Backgrounds can be considered part of the logo in many cases, at least to some extent. In the case of the Portal logo, I only see it used officially on either a black background or a rough gray gradient ― I don't see it used on a white or light gray background, which is how it appeared in the article.

So at a minimum, I would suggest a provision like this:

If you must modify a logo for some reason, make sure your changes are unnoticeable if possible. Do not change the shape of the logo or remove any part of it (such as a trademark symbol), and if practical, do not adjust the color or background and do not attempt to make it clearer or prettier than the original image. If the only available official version of a logo was distributed in non-digital form, some modification may be necessary to get it to display as intended on the web, and similarly, if the logo was only distributed in digital form, some modification may be necessary for the image to be print-ready. However, the web display of logos taken from (for instance) the trademark holder's website are exactly as the logo is intended to appear on the web, and this should be respected for display in web articles.

Which is probably too verbose, and possibly too vague or otherwise flawed. What do you think? (Especially if there are any third parties here.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Since this page seems unlikely to get many more people commenting aside from the two of us, I've posted notices requesting comment at two other copyright-related pages that get at least a few posts a day, Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. This isn't an exclusively copyright-related issue, but copyright/trademark are the most relevant in terms of my policy concerns. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Vectorizing has long been accepted as the best way to deal with logos that can readily be vectorized. The TM and circle-R are trademark notices are not mandatory to use from a trademark point of view, and they're not part of the logo (even if they are part of the graphics file), so I see no reason to require they be used. From context, it's clear that when we reproduce a logo it's a trademark belonging to the organization in question. Actual changes to the color, design, shape, etc., of the logo are improper because they don't fairly represent the logo so it's a misrepresentation, as well as unencyclopedic. It's a good question whether one should remove the tag-line text from a logo. The guideline suggests in most cases finding a version without the text. However, there are some logos that a company always uses with the text (which is subject to a separate trademark, but arguably not part of the copyright and certainly not copyrightable on its own), never by themselves. I would look around on the web. If the text always accompanies the logo, that's a good sign the company considers it part of their branding. If one finds the logo standing on its own in an official use of the logo, that's a sign that the text is dispensable. Wikidemo (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What should be done in the event of a logo that appears in different places with different colorings? Pick whichever one looks best in the article, or try to use one that's most commonly used by the company in the context of things like websites? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Modifications should be avoided, simply because trademark law is designed (among other things) to ensure integrity of the logo. It's obviously fine to use existing vector versions (including EPS), but we should avoid converting a raster to a vector, unless they appear identical. Superm401 - Talk 07:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US government logos

The last section of this article states: "Specific US law prohibits the reproduction of designated logos of US government agencies without permission. Use restrictions of such logos should be followed and permission obtained before use, if required." Does this mean that it is illegal to use logos such as Image:US-NationalParkService-ShadedLogo.svg on Wikipedia without permission, regardless of the rules that apply to non-governmental logos? And is it appropriate to AFD government logo images that don't document such permission? Ipoellet (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wikis logo

can i use that anywhere here? im sure wiki wouldnt sue itself for copyviolations...would it?♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] svg logos

hello, i want to ask a few things.

i wanted to upload vector version of logo of DC Comics, because I find it more useful. Then I realised, it is fair use and so it should not be SVG.

However, there is this crazy template {{SVG|fairuse}} - I don't get it much! For example in this logo - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:English_Pokemon_logo.png - there is clearly written, that wikipedia WANTS logos in SVG ... I don't know, it looks like WP is contradicting itself... --Have a nice day. Running 23:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have uploaded the vector version of DC Comics logo, but I am really not sure about fair use.... i think WP should have clear guidelines if YES vector logos or NO vector logos. All I can find out are endless discussions, as the one on this page. --Have a nice day. Running 11:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There have been horribly protracted discussions about SVG logos, and in the end it was decided that they were permitted within certain guidelines. {{SVG|fairuse}} was created to stop fair-use images appearing in the main {{SVG}} category gallery (which is not fair use, and gets in the way for conversion efforts for free images) even before it was firmly decided that SVG logos were allowed. HOWEVER, just because Image:English Pokemon logo.png has the {{SVG|fairuse}} tag on it, it doesn't mean that "Wikipedia wants logos in SVG", just that someone who saw that image wanted the logo in SVG. Stannered (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PD-textlogo

Why isn't {{PD-textlogo}} listed on this page? MBisanz ^talk 03:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably because that template was created long after this page was written, and no one's got around to adding anything about it yet. Stannered (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why does this page exist?

This is a serious question. Why does this page exist? The existence of this page seems (to me) to have given at least one user the belief that logos should be treated differently to other non-free media. From reviewing our policies and goals, I see absolutely no reason why they should. So why do we have this page? At the very least, I feel this advice/these guidelines should put more stress on the fact that logos are non-free images, and should be treated as such in every way. J Milburn (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There was, at one point, significant disagreement over whether to use logos in articles at all. This page exists to say "yes, we do use logos in articles for identification purposes, and yes, this is considered a valid NFCC justification". --erachima talk 00:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Then why all this fluff? Why not simply direct people to a more general discussion of non-free media once the page establishes that logos in general can be used? J Milburn (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Somebody wanted to make it look nice and the logo template needs somewhere to point? I don't know. --erachima talk 02:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I see it, this page is extremely damaging. It has a load of rather poor/irrelevent advice, it's rather one sided, and gives people the impression that logos should be treated differently to other non-free images. I feel this should be marked only as an essay, or even deleted/tagged as historical. I am going to bring this up on the village pump in an attempt to attract more people to the discussion. J Milburn (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd have to respectfully oppose that idea. While this page may need updating to include things like {{PD-textlogo}}, logos do make up 25% of our non-free images and are treated differently in that they may be uncopyrightable, but still not free (if their trademarked). Which parts of it give poor advice? MBisanz ^talk 13:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:MBisanz. They are different because they are always not-free and can never be replaced by a free alternative, so this page explains the policy specfically on logos. Epson291 (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

They aren't always non-free- some are PD due to the simplicity, or the age. In any case, any non-free image must be irreplaceable, otherwise we delete it. We should not treat logos any differently from other non-free images and, as I see it, this page advocates that. J Milburn (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Logos should be treated differently. There is a distinct difference between copyrights (other non-free material) and trademarks (such as logos). The language of the guideline may need attention, but the distinction made is certainly valid. Vassyana (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Then this page should be specifically about trademarks, and lose all the misleading information about copyright- logos should be treated like other non-free images in that respect. I don't know anything about trademarks, but as it is a legal matter, have we any word from the Foundation on what to do about them? J Milburn (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "All fair-use restrictions apply, but..."

{{SVG-Trademark}} states that "in particular this image should not be rendered any larger than is required for the purposes of identification and/or critical commentary". What is the point of this? No article should have ridiculously large images in anyway, particularly not logos that are only there for identification purposes. And rendering them in higher resolution hardly helps people steal them, since they can simply go to the image page, download the SVG and render at ∞dpi.

Possible proposals:

1. Forbid downloading of fairuse images. Not sure how that would be done technically, but at least it would make the "don't render at large sizes" clause make sense. Of course then you're relying on people not rendering the image at 10,000px. So presumably the same software restriction would also then need to stop such images from being rendered at wider than, say, 500px.
2. Introduce random "jitter" in all outlines in all fairuse uploaded SVGs. This would mean that whilst the image could be rendered without distortion at any resolution up to the maximum allowed, above this the jagged edges and jitters could be seen meaning that it couldn't be abused to create a faithful reproduction of the original logo.

Any thoughts? Stannered (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is a photo on a logo a free alternative?

The use of a SVG logo at the article on Comic-Con International is being questioned. Some users argues that since there is a free alternative, a photo on the same logo (Image:Comic Con International.jpg), the SVG version of the logo should not be used, and should in fact be deleted according to the Wikipedia's non-free content guidelines (see the deletion discussion). I am not very familiar with US copyright laws and the practice of fair use. But it seems that most articles on Wikipedia features a jpg or svg logo at the top of an infobox in the article. And I also wonder if a close photograph of a logo can ever be a free alternative. I cannot find anything in this guideline that gives a clear answer to these questions. Someone who can help me out? --Kildor (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A photo of a logo is not a free alternative, in the same way that I could not come and photograph your photograph and claim that it is mine. J Milburn (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A photo of a banner that has the logo is not a photo of just the logo. It's a photo of the banner. The banner is a thing in a setting, as opposed to a user-created image which shows nothing but the logo. You can take a photograph of the giant Coca-Cola sign in Time Square without violating copyright. The sign is not just the logo. A photo of the sign is not the same thing as a photo of a Coca-Cola billboard which is not the same thing as a Coca-Cola bottle. A photo of a billboard in Scranton would not be the same thing as a photo of a billboard in Honolulu. Each photo tells a story. A banner hanging from a ceiling reveals something people see of the environment when they attend the Comic-Con convention.

WP:LOGOS is clearly written with the understanding that free alternatives exist. Otherwise, it wouldn't say to avoid using a logo when such an alternative exists. Therefore, what is a free alternative as mentioned by the policy? Doczilla _STOMP! 09:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly where in this policy can I find the text about "avoid using a logo when such an alternative exists"? Please take a look at the "Why does this page exists" above. --Kildor (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I looked it up before I even joined that IfD (in which we've both said plenty and now really ought to stay out of so other people might weigh in), and now I can't find it. But why would any of you be discussing what a free alternative is if you haven't seen such policy or licensing warning yourselves? Doczilla _STOMP! 09:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You claimed that there was a free alternative, and I simply responded to that claim (and asking here for advice). You have probably read the Wikipedia:Non-free content before, which says that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". So, the question is still if there is a free equivalent to a logo. And the answer appears to be no according to the discussions above. --Kildor (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A free alternative to a logo could be (for example) a picture of the product in the case of the company, or a picture of the band in the case of the band. A picture of the logo is not, by any stretch of the imagination, always needed. J Milburn (talk) 10:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, although it seems to be common practice to illustrate articles on companies and organizations with their logo. This guideline does not prevent the use of logos in this case, and the discussions above make us understand that logos should be treated differently. In the specific case of Comic-Con International, the proposed alternative to using the logo is to use a photo on the same logo: Image:Comic Con International.jpg, which isn't exactly a free alternative. --Kildor (talk) 10:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I contest that logos should be treated differently- just like any other non-free image, if we can get by without using them, they shouldn't be used. I admit logos are used on almost all company pages, but I would say that, in a lot of those cases, they were actually needed. On the other hand- if you take, for instance, band pages (especially heavy metal bands, which often use logos) a lot of the logos have been filtered off, as, in terms of identity, the logos are pretty irrelevant, and are mostly decoration. With a lot of corporations, the logo is what defines them; the main part of their corporate image. As for using this guideline to back up your arguments- I'd say ignore them. The only use of this page appears to be guidance for how to deal with trademark issues, but it has become a little too big for its boots and is now trying to override more important policies. J Milburn (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a policy document as well, but it probably needs some clarification. I do not know much about the Comic-Con International to tell if their logo is relevant enough, but I would say it is more or less the same case as with Coca Cola. Is it really necessary to illustrate the article with a logo? There are multiple photos on cans and bottles to be used instead. The Coca Cola logo is of course much more widespread than the one of Comic-Con, but if that is the only difference, this policy should be made clearer on what is required in order to present a logo. --Kildor (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why this guideline (not policy) is so misleading. What this page says is irrelevant- people should not be judging whether logos are needed based on what is said here, but on what is said at WP:NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There it is. Thank you, J Milburn. "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." And in this case, the encyclopedic purpose is either to show what the logo looks like or just decorate the article. That word "only" is pretty darn strong. Doczilla _STOMP! 17:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly- it is strong, and decorating the article is not an 'encyclopedic purpose'. The logo should only be used when demonstrating what it looks like is key to the article- and, in most (not all) company pages, it is. J Milburn (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changed to essay

This page has no right to be called a guideline. It is misleading at best, and, at worst, goes against WP:NFCC. Many users appear to be confused by this, believing that logos should be treated differently from other non-free images and so it needs to be made clear that this contains only advice and opinions- not something to refer to in order to allow you to include non-free images when they are blatantly not allowed. If you disagree with me, please explain why here. J Milburn (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have put a notification on the Village Pump about this change. I think it was perhaps a bit hasty to change the status to an essay, but let see what other people think. --Kildor (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the downgrade for the time being, given that there is no strong consensus to mandate such a change. Quite the opposite actually, given a fairly recent discussion on the subject, in which virtually no one was compelled to agree with J Milburn and editors such as MBisanz and Vassyana outright opposing him. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 15:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not some people opposed my (tongue in cheek) suggestion that the page should be deleted, no one has yet explained why logos should be treated any differently from other non-free images. In terms of project-wide consensus, WP:NFCC holds more consensus than this, meaning that this (which tells us that some non-free images should be treated differently) has no right to be treated as a guideline. J Milburn (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I see two unique circumstances with logos that do not occur with other non-free images. First, and it might be splitting hairs, is that there never is a free version of a non-free logo. It is either non-free, and all versions of the logo are non-free, or it is in the public domain, and all versions of the logo are in the public domain. Second, logos change from time to time, and use of a historical logo doesn't jeopardize the owner's potential to profit from it. Other than that - essay or guideline - there's not a lot of difference. Although a guideline is thought to carry more weight, in both cases, there are acceptable exceptions, and common sense is the ultimate guideline. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There should never be a free version of any non-free image that we use, and, again, a lot of non-free images can change- album covers, currency, postage stamps, flags, etc. I don't see why either of them separates logos. I agree with the other thing that you are saying- however, my bone with this 'guideline' is that a lot of people are coming here, reading this and believing that logos should be treated differently. I doubt that that is due to a failure to apply common sense on their part, and I personally believe that it is because this guideline is misleading. J Milburn (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There are free versions of general non-free images. If I lift a photo, let's say, of one of the presidential candidates, from a publication, that's a non-free image. If I am fortunate enough to take a photo of that same candidate, and I post it to Wikimedia in the public domain, then that's a free version. It's not the same image, per se, but it is the same subject. That can never happen with a logo. Either every version of the logo is free, or it's non-free, which is the case where a logo's copyright has expired, or it was pre-1978 without an accompanying copyright notice, or it is a text-based logo. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand how WP:LOGO can condone the use of SVGs at all, "For SVG formats, versions of the logo that contain significantly more detail than is necessary to display at the desired (low) resolution should be avoided." WP:NFCC #3b demands low resolution, while SVGs are infinitely scalable. indopug (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Not all logos fall under WP:NFCC. Text-based logos are an example; they cannot be copyrighted. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If they are ineligible for copyright (I assume that means they are free) then what is the problem with showing logos that "contain significantly more detail than is necessary to display at the desired (low) resolution"? indopug (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

None at all. J Milburn (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bold and Stupid

I am going to be bold and stupid. I am not going to read through eight years of discussion before posting the following so if this has been said before maybe that says that this idea has self-generating purpose and value...

I believe logos should always (unless legally challenged by trademark owners) be included on the main article page for the subject that the logo identifies. This is because it adds information to the mind of the reader. If I read about the Jaycees and then while driving into a town I see a sign with a Jaycee logo I can immediately know what that sign represents.

Consider it this way... If you go into any small ethnic urban community (china-town, little-korea, little-moscow, etc) found in most major cities you will not be able to read much of the signage unless you know that language. But a picture of a pipe will tell you where to buy tobaco products and a picture of a bowl with chopsticks will help you find a place to eat.

Companies and organizations create logos because they want their products/services to be easily recognized. Wikipedians create articles because they want knowledge to be expanded. Adding a logo to an article is adding a easy visual recognition to knowledge.

My two cents. -- Low Sea (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If the logos are so important, then it will be easy for them to meet WP:NFCC, and, if they aren't that important, then your argument is void. Either way, a separate policy is not needed for logos. J Milburn (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Under WP:NFCC criteria #8 says: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

Obviously I feel the ability to connect written facts with a recognizable symbol that summarizes all of those facts "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" in the real world. Knowledge and understanding extend far beyond the pages of an encyclopedia.

As to the other part of that criteria, "and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", let me have you answer that...

• SCENARIO: You are a non-denominational Christian who just moved into in a new town and are looking for a place of worship. Driving around you see a beautiful church building with this logo[10] out front. You notice the cross and the crown, both familiar Christian icons, but you cannot see a sign with a name. You can just go in there and ask what denomination they are. What could it hurt?

I dont know why it has changed but to see the picture at the above link you have to click on the URL highlighted in ugly orange. It is the same URL (http://nspv.narod.ru/ariyskaya_natsiya.jpg) as the link above but for some odd reason it won't let you go directly to it anymore. -- Low Sea (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Would knowing what that logo represents be helpful? Would not knowing be detrimental? -- Low Sea (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure, in the majority of cases, logos will be greatly helpful- and they will meet our NFCC, meaning this guideline is not needed. However, in those cases where logos don't add a great amount to the article (in a lot of cases with band articles, where the band's dress, the music, the music videos, the album covers and even the instruments sometimes come before in terms of identifying the band, for instance) it is silly to feel the images are needed, just because they are logos. Instead, logos should be treated just like any other non-free image- added if absolutely needed, removed if not. J Milburn (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are photos with one prominent logo or trademark derivative works?

I would like to take (and upload) some photos of shopfronts and aggregations of literature with trademarked letterheads, to demonstrate the identity of businesses, and the use of their logo. Are these in general derivative works, or do we need to look at them on a case by case basis? Examples from another user are this shopfront, Image:Melk branch 1.jpg, and the balloon on the right. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)