Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-02/Wikipedia:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos/summary of positions

Statement from Hammersoft
I believe User:Masem has done a wonderful job of summarizing the point of policy under which this problem exists. diff. A more thorough breakdown of the dispute can be found at User:Hammersoft/rfar.

What is at stake here: Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia. Should a decision from this dispute result in allowing logos to be included for identification purposes on articles related to an entity, but not on that entity itself, we will be opening the flood gates to tens of thousands of uses of non-free logos across a dizzying array of article types. This dispute, while focused on the sport of college football, has very far reaching impact. See also diff.

I am not against considering a compromise. I'd like to make that very clear. I do not think a compromise is possible, but that is entirely different than being for or against a compromise.

I do not think a compromise is possible because the nature of the use in all the specific disputed cases (rivalries, seasons, specific games) is the same; the logo is being used for identification of an entity (ex: sports team) on an article that is not specifically the article about that entity (ex: a sport team's season). Either we allow this sort of usage or we do not.

If someone can come up with a compromise position, I'm all ears. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to BQZ: Forgive me, but I thought this dispute was regarding the use of non-free logos on derivative articles? If you wish to start an RfC regarding my behavior, which you spent two of three paragraphs below discussing, read RFC. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Other side
Short version (details provided as necessary): There is a disupute amongst Wikipedians as to what is appropriate use of copyrightable trademarks and noncopyrightable trademarks, within sports articles with regards to the lead image. Some of us view it as appropriate to place the dominant team logo(s) as the appropriate lead image on team articles, season articles (though some, including myself, view each year as a team since the teams' successes vary widely from year to year), rivalry articles, etc. As an alternative, I proposed using the noncopyrightable logos (one seems to be available for every team I can find) as the standard for everything except the main team article with a copyrightable logo only being used as a last resort. While this achieved a majority opinion with almost a 2:1 support ratio, there is significant opposition (as in veracity of opposition, not quantity of opposers) with regards to implementation.

My take on Hammersoft's side: he wants someone to declare his view as the "correct" one (or the "incorrect" one) and has been unwilling to make any compromise from his original position that any use outside the main team article violates a nebulous "minimal use amongst Wikipedia articles means only one use in a single article is acceptable" concept that is not codified anywhere. In short, I believe this to be his attempt to force his preference/desires upon the Wikipedia community without the backing of WP:CONSENSUS. Consistent exaggeration, misrepresentation, and flamboyant language (i.e. "Should a decision from this dispute result in allowing logos to be included for identification purposes on articles related to an entity, but not on that entity itself, we will be opening the flood gates to tens of thousands of uses of non-free logos across a dizzying array of article types.") doesn't help and mischaracterizes the situation. His "dizzying array" of articles basically is limited to 6 types: main articles about teams, season articles, rivalry articles, athletic department articles, event articles, and other unspecified, but related, articles (of which I do NOT, in general, support inclusion unless it is an article about logos).

I welcome your mediation and, despite accusations to the contrary, I hope this succeeds and ArbCom is not necessary. My concerns regarding a compromise is that Hammersoft has no ideas on what would help us reach a compromise and consensus and has opposed any phrasing for a compromise. He continues to say he's open to compromise, but has not offered any options other than his way ans willingly states he cannot think of a way compromise can happen. This leads me to conclude he has a "my way or the highway" mentality and the ArbCom is the only possible alternative since he is (de facto) unwilling to compromise. — BQZip01 — talk 18:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Third position statement from cmadler
WP:LOGO says that ''The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of a famous actor: most users feel that portraits provide valuable information about the person that is difficult to describe solely with text. Logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity. Unlike people, however, where it is often possible to take a free photograph of that person, logos are typically protected by copyright and trademark law and so cannot be replaced by a completely free alternative.''

For a general article about a team (e.g. Michigan Wolverines and Michigan Wolverines football) this is clearly applicable. For an article about an instance of a team (e.g. 2008 Michigan Wolverines football team), a photograph of the team (even a non-free official team photograph) is preferable to a logo as this better fulfills the intent of this guideline; however, when a photograph can not be found or created (e.g. 1901 Michigan Wolverines football team) use of a logo (even if no free logo exists) is acceptable. Team logos should not be used in articles about rivalries except to the extent that the rivalry has a logo which incorporates a team logo. Likewise, team logos should not be used in articles about bowl games except to the extent that a team logo are incorporated into the bowl game logo. Likewise, team logos should not be used in articles about individual games except to the extent that the individual game has a logo incorporating the team logos.

Some editors argue that any usage other than on the "main" article is the same and is not permitted; however, that argument could be reasonably extended to say that, since the "block M" logo is used by all University of Michigan teams, the logo can only be used on the main article, Michigan Wolverines but not on the articles for individual teams such as Michigan Wolverines football, Michigan Wolverines men's basketball, Michigan Wolverines baseball, etc. In fact, since in that case it is the logo of the university rather than a specifically athletic logo, the main article is University of Michigan, and even use on Michigan Wolverines is prohibited. However, it is the logo of the University AND the logo of the university's athletics AND the logo of the football team AND the logo of the 2008 football team, and can appear on each of those pages. They all happen to have the same logo in that case, but not always. It is NOT, however, the logo of the Michigan-Ohio State rivalry, or the 2007 Rose Bowl, or the 2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game and shouldn't be used on those pages.

This dispute is about the nature of non-free image use and when it is appropriate. It has previously been agreed that this is not a question of legality; rather this is a question of how Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:LOGO and WP:NFC should be interpreted and applied. The interpretation of "minimal usage" (NFC 3a) is specifically one of the key disputes (summarized by Masem in the link given by Hammersoft above). In cases where a "free" logo exists, its use or non-use is a matter of style to be determined through WikiProjects or MOS, not through this dispute resolution process. While I applaud BQZip01 for seeking out numerous logos which appear to be uncopyrightable in the US, some editors have raised questions about whether all of these are, in fact, uncopyrightable. In the end, however, the existence of apparently "free" logos for many university athletic programs does not resolve this dispute, which is not limited to college and university athletic teams.

Note that I simply use the University of Michigan as a convenient example, despite the fact that the logo in question, "Block M" is trademarked but probably not copyrightable, and so, for Wikipedia's purposes is considered "free." The same argument could be applied to most other sports programs.


 * cmadler (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)