Template talk:Non-free logo/Archive 1

Proposal
Change this: ...corporation, sports team, or organization in question...

Into: ...corporation, sports team, product, or, item in question

A lot of things can have logos, TV stations, corporations, organizations products etc etc. &mdash;This user has left wikipedia 17:06 2006-02-02

New Logo2 Template
I've created the Logo2 template which takes a parameter for what Category page to put the logo on. --JeffW 22:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion
this template is being considered for deletion, as it has a glitch which logo2 corrects.--Esprit15d 19:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In the end, it was kept. SeventyThree(Talk) 23:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Logos of fictional organisations
(If this is the incorrect place to be asking this, please redirect me elsewhere!) Should be used for logos of fictional organisations? If particular here, I'm thinking about the armies in the fictional Warhammer 40,000 universe, which have logos created by Games Workshop for them? Would this count as fair use, or do we need a different justification for this? Cheers --Pak21 09:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Category sorting
I'd like a change to be made to the code which categorises logos, so that they can be sorted by something other than filename. From

To

A demonstration is at Category:Sandbox, and my subpages User:SeventyThree/Sandbox, User:SeventyThree/Sandbox 2, User:SeventyThree/Sandbox 3. Thanks, SeventyThree(Talk) 19:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've found another way to do it, using Template:!. SeventyThree(Talk) 05:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Possibly better category sorting
Under the current sorting, the logo template can put an image into any category at all. I would like to recommend that the code be changed to the following:. The code will produce the following:
 * will result in Category:Logos.
 * will result in Category:Computer and video game logos.
 * will result in Category:Company logos.

Thus it will force the word "logo" into the resulting category, forcing it to only be sorted into a logo category. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 12:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd rather not, on three points.
 * This would break every page which uses the piping as it is. This could be fixed by bot, but it doesn't seem worth the effort for such a small change.
 * It's a lot simpler the way it is at the moment. Putting in an almost-complete fragment like that seems unnatural to me. Particularly since the non-logo categories have a plural, e.g..
 * That would break sub-category sorting using the magical !. I don't think many images use this, but any which do would have to be fixed.
 * (P.S. did you mean will force the word "logos" into the resulting category ? SeventyThree(Talk) 03:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I know it would require a bot to fix initially. That is why I am bringing this up in the first place. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 08:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To address point two, we don't say "computer and video games logos". Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wording change requested
At the top of the page, an editor suggested that "corporation, sports team, or organization in question" be changed to "corporation, sports team, product, or, item in question". Since there didn't seem to be any discussion on that particular point, I'm assuming that there was no oppososition either. There also seem to be well-populated categories of Category:Logos that pertain to things rather than groups of people. I second the spirit of the change, but to avoid wordiness, I suggest just simply using general terms — e.g., "organization" instead of "corporation, sports team, or other organization".

So, specifically, I propose the first clause of the first sentence should be changed from "This is a logo of a corporation, sports team, or other organization" to "This is a logo of an organization, item, or event" and that the first bullet point be changed from "to illustrate the corporation, sports team, or organization in question" to "to illustrate the organization, item, or event in question." If there is any disagreement, please feel free to discuss. Thanks. — TKD::Talk 03:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems like a good idea to me. It certainly reflects the wide range of images this template is used on. SeventyThree(Talk) 23:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Edit made. Let me know on my talk page if I messed up anything :). RN 07:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale
I just had a conflicting opinion with User:Hiding regarding giving fair use rationales with this tag. This is due to "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information" in the tag.--Jusjih 16:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki request
Please add intewiki link for Serbian language Wikipedia. The link is sr:Шаблон:Лого Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 09:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done --  Netsnipe  ►  08:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you added the wrong interwiki link; the one you added is for film-screenshot. Please, correct it to the above mentioned interwiki link. Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 06:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Fixed. --  Netsnipe  ►  07:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

New logo for this template
- I know it doesn't look good, but it gives the generic red copyright logo a new look. Please fix it so it appears correctly, as in the Logo inside the red copyright logo. VelairWight 22:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki
Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template: vi:Tiêu bản:Biểu trưng Thanks.

– Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 01:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the editprotected template. --HappyCamper 15:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please add RU-wiki ru:Шаблон:Логотип --Alex Spade 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ The interwiki has already been added to the /doc page. Peachey88 (Talk Page 04:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use for trademark?
The term "fair use" is used in regard to copyright but is that the correct term when used in regard for trademarks? Somewhere out there are logos that are no longer under copyright protection but are registered as trademarks. There must be another term. --Gbleem 00:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really, but please observe the protections of copyright law and trademark law under US law (and most other similar countries and even dissimilar countries which adhere to various treaties) are entirely different and therefore there really isn't a need for such a concept in trademark law. Fair use makes exceptions for certain uses of a work for socially meritous or economically inoccuous uses, however; trademark law largely doesn't provide causes of action against these statutorily defined uses anyways, so there's no necessity for an affirmative defense similar to fair use.--Δζ (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Help:Image page
Image description page is a redirect to Help:Image page, should this not be modified to prevent the redirect? --Bob 22:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Can use the images with this template in other Wikipedia
Can use the images with this template in other Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.246.155.209 (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Depends upon which language the edition of Wikipedia is. Other editions of Wikipedia do not allow fair use / fair dealing. Could you tell me which edition? --Iamunknown 02:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

please add interwiki link to he
Please add an interwiki link to the Hebrew wikipedia, at he:תבנית:לוגו. Eranb 17:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. For minor random reference to whomever added the editprotected template, sometimes better to slip that into a particular section (easier to find the request). But, was obvious enough from your edit summary in history. Thanks. :) – Luna Santin  (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why was this redirected?
Why is Template:Logo now a redirect to Template:Insignia? It would make more sense to me if it were the other way around. —Remember the dot (t) 19:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit perplexed about that too. I've asked User:Betacommand who performed the move. --Iamunknown 02:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently it's fixed. --Iamunknown 10:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

OK great. Thanks! —Remember the dot (t) 21:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

please add interwiki to RU
Please add interwiki to russian wiki: ru:Шаблон:Логотип Thanks.One half 3544 08:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. ^ demon [omg plz] 08:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Add sortkey to Category:Non-free image copyright tags
Just change  to    Thanks  --Iamunknown 05:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. – Luna Santin  (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair-use rationale
Note: I am posting a link to this discussion to the other non-free template talk pages in hopes of centralizing this discussion. This template seems to confuse many users who believe that it exempts them from writing a specific fair-use rationale. I would like to remove the parts of this text that resemble that rationale and attempt to make it clearer to our uploaders that their image will be deleted if this tag is sitting on the page alone. Please do not turn this into a debate on that policy; if you want to talk about that, go over to the speedy deletion talk page. I simply think that in the context of our current policy, we should endeavor to make this and its other non-free cousins clearer about what we require of image uploaders. Thoughts? (ESkog)(Talk) 11:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, not sure if I'm now going against your plea of not discussing this, but... Actually, I wouldn't mind too much if the template contains a canned version of those parts of a good fair use rationale that are indeed recurrent to a type of item, as long as that canned text clearly describes a type of usage that is indeed covered by the policy. But you're right it should contain a hint about how the other things (that's typically Number 8 of the Fair Use criteria, "contributes significantly...") need to be filled in individually. - With this particular item, the logos, I'm not at all certain the current text and current practice (routine inclusion in article headers) makes any sense at all. In what sense does a logo "illustrate" the organisation it belongs to? And why have people thought logos constituted a special case where fair use justification was easier than with other types of images? I'd really have thought the opposite: Companies have a crucial interest in keeping control over how their logo is used, and I can imagine many companies wouldn't be at all happy if other people routinely used them when talking about the company. How did we ever conceive of the notion that routine inclusion of logos was justified? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and be bold and edit this one to see if it makes more sense to people with an example. Let me know what you think. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Left a note at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/templates, maybe a better place to discuss this. - cohesion 04:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not think it is a good idea to remove the basic fair use information from the templates. Things like Wikipedia being non-profit should not have to be written into every single fair use rationale. Also, having information in the tag helps strengthen poorly-written fair use rationales, not to mention the thousands of images that do not yet have fair use rationales. While it's true that all images must eventually have a fair use rationale, cutting the information out of the tag is just going to weaken our claim of fair use. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% with Remember the dot. --- RockMFR 19:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The current version by ESkog is good. Especially that it emphasizes the need of a fair use rationale. Should implement this in all the non-free content templates. Garion96 (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be fine to emphasize the need for a fair use rationale. However, the recent changes have also cut out the much needed basic fair use information. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Does my last edit re-introduce enough of the basic information? All I'm really wanting to accomplish here is to remove anything that could look to the average uploader as though it already is the fair-use rationale for the image's use in all cases. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like this change. Anyone who knows me from wikipedia or commons will know I'm a great proponent of free use. However, it seems we are getting caught up in doing something useless here. This template could have on fair use rationale that applies to all logos that use it. Something like: "This is an unreplaceable logo that is the main subject of the article and is therefore believed to be fair use when hosted in the US by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation." What sort of source would you need? The logo always comes from the company whose article it's used in so there might not even be a need for the parameter but if there is then it should be mandatory. I don't see any rationale other than this that would allow a logo to be used on Wikipedia so why over-bureaucrify things for users who just want to upload a logo. Is it to deter them from uploading fair use\logos? Probably, and if there was a discussion regarding abolishing fair use, I would probably be in support of that but using this method to prevent users from using fair use is just, well, annoying. Yonatan talk 07:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

By making the non-free image upload process harder we will create more people who are emotionally invested in uploading and preserving these images. That would be bad. Instead lets focus on trying to avoid the worst failure modes while otherwise making the process as easy as possible. --Gmaxwell 07:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Having the pseudo-rationale is useful to illustrate the proper use of the image. I recently came across an image marked as that was being used to illustrate a uniform worn by someone in the photo. I pointed out to the uploader that this did not qualify as fair use, since someone can take a picture of the uniform and release it under a free license. This did not convince the uploader, so I pointed out that the tag he was using says "to illustrate the event in question", but he was not using it to illustrate the event. This swayed him and he removed the image. Pardon the anecdotal evidence, but I find the text useful. If you want to strengthen the language regarding the need for fair use rationale and that such rationale must be article-specific, I support that.  Pagra  shtak  13:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That seems reasonable. If the discussion here determines that we want to take this to all of the non-free templates, I will keep the specific limitations on use intact. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty simple, we only allow the usage of logos on articles of the organizations who use them (or if they're non-notable and the founder is, we might allow it in his article). Since we have to review the image page anyway to see if the fair use rationales are okay and we can check the usage of the image while we're there, we might as well not make them a requirement as it doesn't help us verify that an image is uploaded correctly and we probably (hopefully) won't delete images that are proper fair use just because the uploader didn't bother adding a useless fair use rationale that isn't really needed anyway. People who've uploaded stuff wrongly so far might still upload stuff we don't allow even if we require a fair use rationale. Addressing these points, could someone explain to me how *in the specific case of the logo template* these rationales are useful? In the end we'll just get a bunch more pissed off users who got their logos deleted because they didn't add fair use rationales. Yonatan talk 23:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it be a bad idea to suggest the use of logo fur as a tool to help build a rationale? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 03:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem with comic cover template
[ I deleted my own comment, since the discussion ended up happening at User talk:Cyde. If you are interested in comic covers, also see Template talk:Non-free comic. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 04:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC) ]

Two symbols or one?
I preferred the template when it had both the copyright and registered trademark symbols. The difficulty with using logos on WIkipedia stems from the copyright, not the trademark. It is the copyright protection that demands a fair use rationale. (Trademark issues are addressed in the General Disclaimer). If we have to use only one symbol, the it should be the copyright symbol. 22:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that this template needs the copyright symbol. We already have a trademark template for dealing with trademark issues. Another alternative might be to create a new image of similar size which incorporates both symbols. DHowell 22:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I have reverted the recent changes (or will, as soon as the database errors stop). (ESkog)(Talk) 23:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess now it's become a matter of aesthetics, but I find the use of an animation strange. Perhaps there's some creative way to blend both symbols into a static image. Or why not just render the symbols smaller but keep both like in Denelson83's edit? On my screen, the template looked ok with both symbols even at their full size. nadav 23:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please revert the change. Animation should be using sparingly or else it detracts from the real information. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Editprotected nadav 00:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Done, Garion96 (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, other than placing the ® symbol on the right, I'm out of ideas. —David Levy 01:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Denelson83's setup looked fine under my usual settings, but switching to a smaller text size appears to illustrate Tom's concern. I don't like the idea of decreasing the symbols' size (which would diminish their prominence).  —David Levy 01:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How about converting the symbols to text? That way, their size would be at the same scale as the text. Template:Trademark already uses a text ®, but it's set to a definite pixel size. nadav 01:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"unsure"
There are valid cases where it is not possible to establish with certainty the copyright status of an image (unless you are the Supreme Court, and spend a couple of months on the case). Thus, non-free unsure may have legitimage uses. However, it should be used in combination with non-free fair use in so as to establish a conditional fair use argument. --dab (𒁳) 13:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Category change
Please assist Per WP:CfD, these images should be in Category:Non-free logos, not Category:Non-free Logos. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

RO
Would an admin please add ro:Format:Logo ? diego_pmc (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ It's already on the /doc page. Peachey88 (Talk Page 04:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer
I think, disclaimer (Use of the logo here does not imply endorsement of the organization by Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation, nor vice versa) - can be removed from template. General disclaimer with Logos are more than enough. Alex Spade (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? To have that info a bit extra is not bad. It's not that the tag is on article space but only on a logo which is not free content anyway. Garion96 (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wording change requested: and/or trademark
The statement "protected by copyright and/or trademark" is misleading and it suggests this template should be used for all logos protected by either copyright or trademark.

There are many cases where logo's are protected by trademarks but not copyright (e.g. . Further the template says "detailed non-free use rationale [is required]", which is not required for logos trademarked but not copyrighted.

Hence I propose changing:

copyright and/or trademark to

--Svgalbertian (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅, although I found a more efficient way of doing it. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Change to Wording: "and possibly trademark", to "and trademark" and (2) adding "law" to clarify trademark/copyright law is what grants protection
Currently this item states, in part: "this is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright  and possibly trademark." I propose removing "possibly" before trademark as misleading and unhelpful. The description of the content given in the template itself establishes that the work is protected by trademark law, and it would seem difficult to imagine a contrary situation. In addition to slimming the language, the removal of "possibly" will help prevent misunderstanding over the use of this logo and the applicability of trademark law to wikipedia policy by preventing inferences that trademark law may not protect a work when this is likely never the case so far as I can envision. Additionally, I propose adding "law" after copyright and trademark in the quoted sentence above as the law is what grants the protection. Alternatives would be making "and possibly trademark" an appositive and placing law thereafter. Let me know what you think.--Δζ (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Not sure how to get concensus as requested on the editprotected template page, but it seems others just add this and wait for feedback, so that's what I'll do now I guess- been a few days since proposal.--Δζ (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see the section above for the request that added the "possibly". The template contains the parser function


 * Are you sure the word is never needed? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If the word possibly is confusing, remove trademark from the default case all together.
 * --Svgalbertian (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Practically, I am sure that the word "possibly" would never be needed, though of course I'm not infallible and hope the resoning of my proposal wins folks over rather than my own confidence. I cannot invision a situation in which a work that was described by the logo, i.e. those works the logo is designed for, would not be protected by trademark law in the US/Florida.  While this doesn't mean the trademark protection is particularly relevant to the use of the work in Wikipedia, that's kind of the whole point of these templates: to warn about potential legal and policy concerns associated with the use of various works described by the templates.  I have difficulty understanding the code people are using, and don't have an opinion on what Svgalbertian says due to this, though I think warning about possible trademark policy/law issues is a good idea.  For those that are unsure or doubt whether the word possibly would never be of use, I would suggest trying to envision a case in which trademark protection would not attach to a work correctly taged by this template- I can't think of any, and certainly the removal of "possibly" makes the warning stronger not weaker, so it likely isn't harmful even if I'm incorrect.--Δζ (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In response to the comment directing me to the proposal which added the word "possibly" I'd like to note that I saw that proposal and agree with the reasoning made by the proposer- trademark is probably broader in its technical applicability than copyright in most every application relevant to this template's scope. As stated previously, I don't find the solution proffered, the use of the word 'possibly,' the best solution.  Another proposal would be to delete all mention of trademark, as I believe Svgalbertian might be proposing (don't understand the code very much), and simply add a note at the bottom of the template stating trademark law/policy must be satisfied seperately from copyright law/policy, perhaps:  "Trademark law and policy is independent from Copyright law and policy.  A work may be barred from a particular use by trademark law/policy despite not being subject to copyright law/policy restrictions." (something like this might work best).--Δζ (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing all metion of trademark from the default template is what I proposed. However the code I proposed will reintroduce "and trademark" if specificy called by --Svgalbertian (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing all metion of trademark from the default template is what I proposed. However the code I proposed will reintroduce "and trademark" if specificy called by --Svgalbertian (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As per above please edit the template as follows: --Svgalbertian (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)