Wikipedia talk:Logos
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives (Index) |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 |
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here. |
Contents |
[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)
- Mike Godwin, legal counsel for Wikipedia has been consulted and does not believe that the use of properly documented historical images violates any fair use laws. See link to discussion with Godwin's response. dhett (talk • contribs) 19:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#How.2C_when.2C_and_why_for_historical_logo WhisperToMe (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] SVG nonfree logos - allow or not?
Okay, this needs to be sorted once and for all. OTHERWISE, people are going to keep uploading logos in SVG, and the admins will be forced to make the choice between leaving them all due to the sheer number or destroying all that work. Plus, with no clear statement on the issue, editors may on the other hand upload logos as rasters well below fair use resolution just to be safe, leaving Wikipedia looking a little ugly. This is just my opinion, but I think Wikipedia looks fairly unprofessional when a logo has just been pulled directly from a group's homepage.
Personally, here's what I think should happen, to avoid this argument happening later down the line:
- SVG should be declared the format to be used for free logos, if possible
- PNG should be declared the format to be used for nonfree logos, with alpha transparency if possible
It would be nice if someone could make a bot that would use rSVG (or whatever the Wikimedia software uses) to convert those nonfree SVGs to PNGs. Most of them are tagged with {{SVG-Logo}} or can be tagged with it. I would do it myself, but I'm not a programmer; existing code could probably be easily retooled to the task, however. It's a much better solution than simply deleting these logos, after all it's not the fault of the editors who went to the trouble to find the SVGs that the rules were in an unfixed state. I Love SVG (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have strong feelings. But we need a clear resolution if we can, as non-free raster images are speedily deleted (unused) when they are replaced with non-free SVGs. I know they stay around in the database for admins to undelete them, but ordinary editors can't get at them. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- Reversion isn't always the best option anyway, in some cases the old raster would be inferior (lower resolution than required for fair use, or without alpha transparency) to a conversion of the SVG. - I Love SVG (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Just thought I'd point out some previous discussions which deal with this topic (here and here) for anyone who hasn't already read them. Gr1st (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It may be time to do some wikiarchaelogy to find out why this paragraph was deleted:
- 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.
The discussions Gr1st linked seemed to support that approach, and it is exactly what I Love SVG is proposing. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm largely in agreement with the points raised by Interiot stated in this discussion: unlike raster images, SVG files do not have a resolution per se. Therefore, as stated by the proviso at the top of Category:Fairuse images that should be in SVG format (which was created as a result of said discussion), fair-use SVGs should be acceptable as long as they do not include appreciably more detail than is necessary to display them accurately at the required resolution. I can't see anything approaching a consensus to completely get shot of non-free vector images in previous discussions. Additionally, as User:Stannered suggested above, I wonder whether some sort of technical restriction on the rendering size of non-free SVGs might be possible. Gr1st (talk) 10:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- No because we still serve the raw SVGs so reusers can resuse them at any size. Since most logos are fairly simple talk of controling the level of detail is pretty much meaningless in SVG format.Geni 13:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
So a 3-2 majority now counts as "little support for SVG", does it? Gr1st (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, a 3-2 "majority" is definitely not consensus, that's for sure. (Consensus tends to be considered around 70% and above). TalkIslander 19:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think its a bit odd to categorically state that SVG is incompatible for fair use. After all its not impossible that the logos where in SVG to begin with. Any mass deletion process would destroy thousands of hours of work. Moreover it would be fair to the user that were actively encouraged to covert everything non-photographic image material to SVG format. If this really is a problem, the first step would be to remove {{SVG}}-templates by bot from fair-use images and blocking new uploads of SVG logos. --Soman (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Can the advice of the Wikimedia Foundation’s lawyers be asked on this? The discussion so far seems like pure speculation to me. —jacobolus (t) 23:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Was anything ever decided here in the best part of a year? The debate seems to have sparked up again here and here --Nigelj (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Sports logos
A straw poll was recently conducted in a related RFC regarding non-free images in sports. Any thoughts on it, the Straw poll summary, and proposed guidelines on image use are appreciated. — BQZip01 — talk 01:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Cropping trademark/copryight logos on covers
There has been a discussion on the Video game article guidelines page about implications of cropping a logo in PhotoShop or any other similar program to remove the console's logo for use on an infobox. We are trying to get an expert opinion whether this would violate any copyright or trade laws.
NOTE: there is also a seperate NPOV issue as well.陣内Jinnai 00:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- What is the specific image involved here? Can you cite one? — BQZip01 — talk 02:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- This has been an ongoing debate about whether it violates any copyright law to crop an image with the explicit intent to remove a logo from it for the purposes of WP:NPOV in the Video Games Wikiproject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#COPYVIO implications and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Which box art to use as well as invisual game talk pages too numerous to mention.
- We need someone versed in trademark and probably copyright law to give an answer.陣内Jinnai 19:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Thorough discussion on SVGified logo
Wikipedians are invited to participate in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#PNG better than SVG if the logo is copyrighted ?. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 16:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
