User talk:Zeng8r/Archives/2011/January

User:Zscout370's deletion of File:Florida Gators logo.svg
Zen, please feel free to join the conversation over at Zscout's talk page when you have time. The Gator head logo SVG file has now been restored, and there is a perfectly civil, if somewhat one-sided conversation on-going. Zscout would like to see 2 or 3 fair uses of the logo; I think that magic number is more like 16. Part of our negotiating strength is that only the Gators football team uses the script Gators logo. The other part of their problem is that they have no defined number for "too many uses." The closer they can get to zero fair use instances of any copyrighted logo, the happier they are. We're on stronger ground here than in past "fair use" fights because every one of the remaining uses of the Gator head logo is a perfectly valid use under their own rules (and was already perfectly documented before the latest dust-up). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was pretty busy this week and didn't time to get involved. It seems to be resolved?... Zeng8r (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, not. Zscout and the other NFCC enforcers are simply focusing their enforcement efforts on the South Carolin guys and elsewhere for now.  Trust me: they'll be be back, and probably relatively soon.  Not a bad idea to read up at WP:NFCC.  Their position is that no copyrighted, potentially copyrighted, or copyright-able work may be used under the "fair use" rationale if there is a so-called "free use" or "public domain" alternative available, which for them usually means an all-text logo.  The rule requires that that the alternative be "equivalent," which, of course, they interpret in their own favor.  Here, they are trying to force the use of the script Gators logo instead of the Gator head logo.  Both logos are federally registered trademarks, and neither is subject to a registered copyright, but the NFCC enforcement guys seem to base their enforcement of the NFCC policy on the basis of retained, residual or common law copyright, which to them, means they still win in these dust-ups unless you can demonstrate an express all-purposes release from the author/creator of the copyrighted work in question.  Given the unique cursive lettering and graphic design of the script Gators logo, it may pass the threshold of creative originality, and thus be subject to copyright itself.  They will, of course, attempt to ignore this problem because they believe that no words-only logos may be subject to copyright.  More evidence that you shouldn't send laymen to do lawyers' work.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Article review - thanks!
Hi, thank you so much for reviewing my draft article for Kitson & Partners, I really appreciate your feedback. Having seen the mistakes that other editors have made with promotional articles, I worked really hard to make sure that the article was neutral and well sourced. I definitely understand WP:OWN and I hope that other editors will take an interest in the article and make constructive edits. Thanks again for your help, Brushfoot (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)