Wikipedia talk:Logos/Archive 1

Initial discussion
Discussion moved here from Village pump

I'm wondering what the policy is for adding corporate logos to pages is (ex. CN). I've seen a few and am wondering if they should be removed. Vancouverguy 18:08, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't know if there is a common policy but I have my own: DELETE! I think it makes a article look like its been sponsored or something. -- Viajero 00:09, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * There is no policy. I say keep.  It is valuable, I don't think anyone will assume the page is approved by the company. Tuf-Kat 00:14, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)


 * Just curious: in what way could a corporate logo be considered "valuable" in an encyclopedia article? I think my objection is primarily aesthetic: it just looks cheap. -- Viajero 20:13, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it's time to develop a policy on this. Vancouverguy 23:50, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've seen political party logos on a few pages - I could add them as I go - but won't until we get a decision. It could be useful to help people recognise logos - I don't imagine people would think that the page was sponsored. Secretlondon 00:00, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm... I have no objection at all to the logo on the IBM page, for example, and I'm about to add one to the Uniting Church in Australia page. What's the problem? I think they add value to the articles. Andrewa 09:13, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I would imagine that most, if not all, logos are copyright and should not be included without the permission of the owner? Bmills 09:37, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Logos are a sensitive issue for many companies and are generally licensed to a single user publication at a time without any redistribution rights (other than normal viewing). I also want to use items like company logos (and Time magazine covers) and there's an agency which issues these licenses. In a phone call a couple of weeks ago they indicated that there would be no problem licensing the Wikipedia to use logos on an exclusive basis but that doing so allowing reuse by others was not something they could do. Other encyclopedias would need to request their own permission (which would also probably be granted if they were serious encyclopedias). Should I proceed with the applicaton process? JamesDay 12:01, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ok, this all seems rational, but let's decide whether we want to have logos in the encyclopedia. My reasons against:


 * free advertising for corporations
 * looks like page is sponsored
 * aesthetic: tacky, tacky, tacky.

Wikipedia desperately needs more graphics. But are we this desperate???
 * -- Viajero 12:24, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

First off, should any article that currently includes a logo have it removed until permission is sought (if that is what is decided)?

Second: Viajero raises some interesting points:


 * one of the primary purposes of a logo is to promote the organisation to which it belongs. By adding logos to articles about companies, Wikipedia will be contributing to this promotion, wittingly or otherwise.

IMHO, Wikipedia would be better off without logos. Bmills 12:37, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * what does the logo add to an article beyond this promotion of the logo owner? Most article about companies are likely to contain links to the company Web site, where the logo will be there for all interested parties to see.

No need to immediately remove them because fair use applies to logos as well as other things. Logos are used to associate a visual symbol with a company to aid in recognition. So, yes, we should include almost all corporate logos. They also add to the visual appeal of he Wikipedia and are good for that reason. Requests for logos for use in encyclopedias are so common that there's a specific applicaton type "encyclopedia" in the service which handles the licensing. JamesDay 14:08, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

IANAL but the use of the logo in an article about the organisation which owns and is represented by the logo isn't likely to be a problem IMO so long as there is a caption on the logo which clearly identifies it as a sample of the logo, and the logo is accurately rendered. The image itself may be copyright, this is a different issue and needs to be resolved separately. This same caption IMO removes the problem of anyone mistakenly thinking that the organisation is somehow involved with the article, or with Wikipedia, other than in the obvious way that the article is about them. Without both this caption and accuracy, use of the logo is misleading and probably illegal, and I'd expect the owners to object.

There are three reasons the logo should be there. Firstly, it helps to identify the organisation concerned. Secondly, it's information that is encyclopedic, will be of interest to people reading the article, and which they can reasonably expect to find there. Thirdly, IMO it looks good.

So my suggestion for logo guidelines while the technicalities are being further investigated:


 * Use only in articles whose name is the organisation which either owns or uses the logo.
 * Must be captioned.
 * Must be accurate.
 * Normal copyright requirements on the image.
 * Encouraged provided these guidelines are met.

Is there anything along those lines in the license mentioned above? Does the license deal with all trademarks, or just those which are also corporate logos? It sounds worth having, provided signing up doesn't in any way compromise our existing commitments under the GFDL, which it may. Definitely investigate.

Alternatively, do we need a boilerplate text to ask permission of individual organisations? Andrewa 16:00, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Most of those guidelines are good, but I'd query the last one - encouraged, or merely tolerated? Martin 21:12, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Encouraged because they are human knowledge that readers are likely to want to obtain from us, and that's exactly what Wikipedia is there to provide. I've given three arguments in favour above. There are several arguments against put above too. Let's look at them.


 * Firstly, it is argued that using the logo constitutes free publicity. That's true, but if that's a reason for deleting the logo, then it's an equally good reason for deleting the whole article if it reflects favourably on the organisation. Surely we don't want to do that?


 * If accurate information reflects well on a company, that's their good luck or planning. A well-designed logo does reflect well on a company. But we shouldn't censor this information just because we don't like the corporate world.


 * Secondly, it has been argued that it's misleading to use the logo. I think the guidelines avoid this problem.


 * Thirdly, it's been suggested that it's illegal. This should be investigated, but I'm skeptical of this claim, again provided it is properly captioned. If it turns out to be the case, I might instead just use a photo of a piece of equipment, signed building or similar clearly showing the logo. But I'm confident that most organisations would prefer to have their logo clearly and accurately shown rather than displayed in this manner.


 * Fourthly, it's been suggested that it just looks bad. Obviously I don't agree, but this seems to be the main sticking point. I'm happy to concede it provided we don't sanction arbitrary removal of logos as a result. They are content. People who don't like a particular company or the whole corporate structure should be discouraged from removing logos. If they really do look bad, someone else will do it.

I think we should move this discussion to a talk page. Vancouverguy 16:06, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps to a style page? Andrewa 00:25, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

BTW, there's a very interesting quote and some links on this topic at Image:Canadian National Herald.png. Andrewa 00:53, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * There aren't any disadvantages to the Wikipedia from obtaining a license. It's free protection from the possibility of legal action. While we may have rights anyway, a license is good. The license will only be to the Wikipedia (no derivative works of any sort) because that's all the service is authorized to give. That doesn't restrict the ability of other encyclopedias to obtain their own license, nor the ability of others to use the images under fair use or "not copyrightable" claims. We aren't limiting our rights or those of others in any way, we're simply getting access to the collection and protecton from legal action. Would be nice if they were GFDL but that's not a license the service is authorized to offer, so it's not a license they can convey to us. So, we'd document our license, tell others where to apply to get their license and note that the license in no way limits the rights of others to use the images as provided for by fair use or other provisions of copright law. Jamesday 18:31, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. It would require some mods to Image use policy, and other places, probably pretty minor. And we'd want a copy of the licence itself in a page somewhere, of course. Perhaps getting the text of this proposed agreement is the next thing? Andrewa 03:14, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't know if a license is needed. First we are not selling anything. Publishing the logo in the WP context is informational; usually most &reg; TMs are covered by the class definitions; using them on Wikipedia to enhance an encyclopedia entry is not confusing or creating any kind of problem with the logo's ability to represent the brand (actually we are clarifying the relationship between the logo and the brand). The logo is something used to identify different brands, etc., it is probably fair use (that is not a legal opinion) in the Wikipedia context. I really don't think that making small thumbnails of logos is going to incur the wrath of the corporate behemoths that control us all, anyway, I'd like to see what they do. After all they can edit the page too, it is a wiki, no? See MBTI, the trade mark is not the same as the name or the logo; it part of the knowledge that the human race has created, why not acknowledge it for what it is &8212; excuse me, but I do not think it is corporate advertising. &#8212; Alex756 03:36, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with Alex when it comes to need - it's part of why I don't think our getting a license will limit others, even if the license is exclusive to us. However, images other than logos are available and while those are generally associated with press releases, things like Time magazine covers are a bit less likely than logos to be fair use. The sources are:
 * Newscom (the people I've discussed this with, contemplating the free services only)
 * AP Photo Archive (not discussed yet, also contemplating free only)
 * PR Newswire, even though this is only the text portion. The text is mostly going to be fair use for almost any use or not desired here because it's not GFDL but having a license is free legal protection. Not sure just how keen we should be on rejecting portions of press releases in articles because they aren't GFDL - I'm of the opinion that press release implied licenses and fair use are broader than the GFDL, even though they are routinely used to justify copyvio reports.
 * Jamesday 06:19, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Continued discussion
A second thought occurs to me. I haven't tried the experiment, but I assume that Wikipedia markup lets one link directly to an image on the Web (so that it would appear to be an integral part of the article, but the image would be located/hosted on the company's own server). I know there is some controversy about "deep linking," but it seems to me that for corporate logos it would be reasonable to link to a logo image on the company's own website. For one thing, by using a link rather than a copy, the company keeps control of the image and can change/remove it. For another thing, corporate websites can be assumed to be relatively stable--the link to the log image might get stale, but at least the website itself is probably going to stay around. Dpbsmith 13:23, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I think we do need a decision/advice on this. We can talk and talk but no-one knows what the actual policy is. Without a decision we have the situation where people don't know whether they can add logos or not, or delete ones that are already there. This needs sorting. Secretlondon 13:26, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)


 * By the way... I made this point in the copyright violations talk but... I'm not sure what the right venue is. It's all well and good to talk about fair use, but there is currently no way to upload a fair use image without lying. That is, when you upload the image you check a box that says "I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." If you don't do this, you can't upload the file. Now, personally, I see a big difference between (say) these assertions:


 * I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright.
 * I affirm that this file complies with the Wikipedia policy on image usage.
 * I affirm that to the best of my knowledge this image was created before 1900 and was obtained from a source that does not contain any assertion of copyright
 * I affirm that my use of this image in the specific article entitled (whatever) is covered by "fair use"
 * My name is Cubeb P. Fungus, I live at 123 Main Street, Zenith, Winnemac, and I hold Wikipedia harmless for any copyright infringement claims resulting from the use of this image in Wikipedia


 * Anyway, there are a lot of forms of text I'd be willing to check when uploading an image, but I'm don't feel good about checking the current one unless I darn well know that the image IS copyrighted and that the owner HAS agreed to license it. Usually, that means it's an image I've created myself.


 * The present text does not fit public domain or fair-use images.


 * Unless, of course, I'm missing something.


 * FWIW, it seems to me that the use of a company's logo on an article about the company is highly appropriate and definitely adds something to the article. In the case of a company with a long history, images of how the logo evolved over time would (IMHO) be nice to have, too.

Dpbsmith 17:35, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Here's my view on the situation:
 * The fact that the logos are trademarks is largely irrelevant as we're using them on articles directly related to the company.
 * Logos are generally copyrighted.


 * I think that because of the second point we shouldn't include them because we're already in somewhat dodgy ground over the "fair use" criteria as it is. However if a logo is out of copyright then I have no objection to it being included. An alternative option is to use photographs which represent the company and include the logo, for example photographs of logos on the side of company buildings. --Imran 19:09, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * The fair use claim isn't dodgy. It's a pretty clear example, as is the trademark situation. It's very different from the UK fair dealing situation. Takes a while to get used to just how much broader US fair use is. The best I can suggest is reading some of the decisions about fair use to get some idea of just how it works in practice. Jamesday 20:05, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing that an encyclopedia could use those images under fair use. But based upon a thorough reading of the GFDL I believe that fair-use is not compatible with it. I think that you can't include fair-use material in a GFDL document because you have no right to relicence it. --Imran 23:07, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's a known limitation that the image upload (and all contributions, for that matter) only allow you to say GFDL at the moment. You should clarify after uploading, with an edit to the image description page which gives the actual copyright status and the most complete image source details you have. This lets people easily check on the status and work out what their own reuse rights are. I put the copyright summary in the description of that edit. The ability to link to images outide the Wikipedia was removed some months ago and it appears that it's not going to be restored any time soon. Use of a corporate logo in an encyclopedia article about the company doesn't create any grounds for a trademark action, in part because there's no prospect of the article causing people to believe that the Wikipedia is a product of the trademark holder. Jamesday 13:27, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Common sense says that it should be OK to use a corporate logo in an encyclopedia article about the company for the reason you mention&mdash;the chances of getting into serious trouble would be negligible. It's extremely unlikely that the company would object at all, and if they did it's virtually certain that the objection would take the form initially of simply requesting removal and utterly unlikely that the company would take any further action if the logo were promptly and cheerfully removed in response to such a request. I'm always uneasy about applying common sense to intellectual property, but it seems to me that common sense plus due diligence plus willing to respond to complaints if any should be OK.


 * But I'm still not clear on how Wikipedia sets policy, or, for this issue, what the policy is.


 * I wonder whether, in formulating a policy on logo use, it would be prudent to include a suggested boilerplate caption for logos, such as "Company logo of XYZ corporation. This image may be trademarked and/or copyrighted. All rights belong to the image's owner." Including a phrase about "this company is not associated with Wikipedia" would probably cross the line into paranoia... Dpbsmith 13:57, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia sets policy generally by those with an interest in the subject discussing it and allowing due notice for people to see what is happening, then getting input as the use becomes more widespread. Any policy here is really temporary, pending the chance that it might at some point be modified in the future. If you'd like to write logo policy, just go ahead and edit the policy page to say what you think it should say, including a proposed poicy header and the date of the proposal, then people will discuss it and adjust to meet their preferences and we'll end up with a combination of the views of those participating... The image page should include some note about trademarks but I personally prefer to limit the text of the caption to wording like "limited copying" or similar and have that link to the image description page. That gives people appropriate notice that it's not GFDL or PD, without being unduly verbose. Then proceed to use logos slowly and give people time to notice and see and participate in the discussion if they wish. Jamesday 18:35, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I just added "Not GFDL" as part of the suggested boilerplate to be used when uploading a logo. That's because I just uploaded a logo, and decided that saying "see Logos" was perhaps putting too much of a burden on the user. Assuming people actually bother to use the boilerplate and that people actually read the description before using the image, it seems to me that a "not GFDL" note needs to be obvious, since it is different from most Wikipedia images. Hopefully if it's clear that there are special usage considerations, people will bother to follow the Logos link. Dpbsmith 23:37, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Discussion of current proposal

 * OK, then. Here goes nothing. See Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy for a proposal.

Dpbsmith 23:54, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I disagree with some of the proposed rules as outlined on the main page. Here's why.

"The only appropriate use of a corporate logo is in an article that describes the company in question (that is, in the specific article entitled "XYZ Corporation")."

There are many more appropriate uses of corporate logos, for instance, to demonstrate the design style of the person who designed the logo, or in articles criticizing a company, and in many occasions that I cannot currently imagine.


 * Good point, particularly "to demonstrate the design style of the person who designed the logo." For example, one would obviously want them in an article about Raymond Loewy. (Yikes! It didn't Wiki-link--there's no article on Raymond Loewy ???? !!!!!) But, can you formulate a reasonable guideline? Dpbsmith

"Before including a corporate logo, take usual care to ensure that the article represents a neutral point of view. The article need not be an ad or puff piece. However, a corporate logo should not be used in close juxtaposition to text that is obviously critical of, or highly unflattering to, the company. (Similarly, defaced logos or logo parodies should not be used)."

To the contrary, a logo, especially a logo parody, is excellently suited for an article critical of a company, as it can help illustrate the sort of gripe people have with the company.

On the other hand, the official company logo on the company's article page has little chance of adding anything to the article. Read the IBM article. Now read it and watch the logo. Have you learned anything? Probably not.


 * Read the article on Edward Kennedy, or Beethoven, or Stephen Crane. Now read it and watch the photograph. Have you learned anything? My left brain hasn't. Nevertheless, I think the pictures add something to the articles. Modern encyclopedias generally have them. Why? (Not a rhetorical question). My own answer: well, there's a sense of identification&mdash;oh yeah, I've seen (that guy) (that logo) before. Oh, that's the guy whose bust is on Schroeder's toy piano. Or (that guy) (that logo) looks (older) (younger) than the version I'm familiar with. There's a sense of visual style&mdash;Stephen Crane looks younger, handsomer, and a spiffier dresser than I would have imagined, and, of course, is dressed in an old-fashioned way. In most (all?) cases, when a picture of a person is presented on Wikipedia, it is a flattering portrait that, one imagines, presents the people visually in the way the person wished to be presented. I think there's a valid parallel with logos here. Corporations are legally persons, and the corporate logo is the equivalent an individual's "official" portrait. Dpbsmith 13:23, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I especially have to object to the singled-out urging to "take usual care to ensure that the article represents a neutral point of view". If a person's or group's displeasure with a company is described in an article, that should also happen in an NPOV way. With the current wording you are suggesting that only bland, meaningless articles can be NPOV, and that an article in which criticism on a company is described cannot by definition by NPOV.


 * What I was trying to do was suggest that since a company does have some kind of legal interest in and right to control the use of their logo (I'm carefully avoiding the use of the phrase "intellectual property), I think it is appropriate to be more careful about using a company's logo. Words that represent a non-neutral point of view are covered by free speech. Using a logo might not be. Incidentally, I like some personality and flavor in my encyclopedia articles--I love the Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica and hate the short stubby articles in, say, World Book, that read as if they were approved by a Texas schoolbook selection committee.

I am also afraid that the appearance of a logo on a company page might be construed by some overzealous regulars as a reason to refuse or revert edits that otherwise would have gone in. It would have a stifling effect on the 'be bold' policy.

"In the event of a formal complaint about Wikipedia's use of a logo, from an entity that can be reasonably assumed to officially represent the company owning the logo, the appropriate response is for whoever receives the complaint to remove the logo promptly and cheerfully. No attempt should be made to re-insert the logo (except perhaps under very extraordinary circumstances, and only after extensive discussion)."

I would say that the most logical person to remove a logo is the representative of the company. This is a Wiki. If they don't like the use of their logo, they can edit the page themselves.


 * That dull thud you just heard was the sound of base of my palm making striking with my forehead. Dpbsmith

branko 23:54, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've made some changes to address the issues discussed above. Putting the logo floating to the right at the start of the article is usually all that's required to be trouble-free. That's the text which is likely to be most neutral and the spot where the logo is best able to confirm that people are in the right place - doing exactly the job which the company intends the logo to do. Jamesday 19:01, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I like that much better, thanks. :-) branko 01:05, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Should logos be presented with some kind of distinctive "visual isolation fence?"

This just occurred to me. Should there be some suggested style guide for the visual presentation of a logo that includes some kind of distinctive frame--e.g. presenting the logo right-aligned but with a dotted line below and to the left of it--to cut it off and visually separate it from the text of the article (to emphasize that the logo is there as a fact about the company and does not mean that the accompanying text was authored by the company or was vetted or endorsed by it?

(I'm not presenting an example because I don't know enough about wiki markup to give a specific example (and don't have time to experiment right now...))

Just a thought. Dpbsmith 13:26, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is necesary. The usual float right markup introduces a one or two em gap between logo and text and people will generally recognize the logo. Jamesday 19:01, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Other sites using the Wikipedia logo
What about other sites using the Wikipedia logo, as on http://wikipedia.t-st.de/ ? - Patrick 07:13, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Seems to be a read-only mirror of the German Wikipedia, or parts of it, using the weekly SQL dumps . -- till we *) 20:59, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

Logos
Hello again, and sorry for my perfectible english. I see that my question about the presence of commercial logos in wikipedia pages has disappeared from the village pump, so I put it again because from my point of view, these logos don't bring any information; on the other side such a logo entertain the image of the company in our minds, that's why I consider it as advertising. Why do you think commercial firms pay a lot of money to have their logos visible during big events? Hémant 15:47, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Please provide examples of (links to) articles where logos might be improperly displayed. I think it is an individual matter dependent upon relevance to the article (for example if not a copyvio, it might well be appropriate to display the logo of CocaCola in the article on colas) - Marshman 17:45, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * It's generally perfectly appropriate. If a TV news was covering a story about Ford, they'd show the logo.  They'd show it if Ford was creating new jobs, firing lots of people, had broken some world record, or made some car that killed its occupants.  -- Finlay McWalter 17:51, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Logos and Logos and join the discussion. Most of the Village Pump discussion was moved there. Discussions here and elsewhere led to the drafting of a proposed policy, which, to date, has not gotten enough discussion and debate.


 * My own view is that the logo is the the corporate equivalent of a person's portrait. I feel that a picture of Mark Twain or Hans Christian Andersen or Stephen Crane or Nicole Kidman adds something to an encyclopedia article, even though it is hard to make any left-brained logical explanation of precisely what information it conveys. In similar manner, I think that a logo is a very reasonable thing to have in an article about a company. As to the point that the logo promotes the company, well, so does the mere presence of an article (by indicating that the company is significant enough to deserve mention in an encyclopedia). Any article on practically anything of contemporary commercial significance can be regarded as having a promotional effect. Should we not have articles on J. K. Rowling or Nicole Kidman or Eminem on the basis that commercial firms "pay a lot of money" to publicize these people? That's my $0.02, go to Wikipedia talk:Logos and Logos and let us have yours. Dpbsmith 23:59, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Notes on Jan 3rd changes
I wanted to address the concerns of some Wikipedians that logo use promotes the commercial interests of the company. I therefore added a paragraph describing what I see as the rationale for including a logo in an encyclopedia article:


 * The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of, e.g. Stephen Crane or Nicole Kidman. It is difficult to explain in words what information is conveyed by such a portrait, yet most users feel that they provide something valuable. The logo should be regarded as the corporate portrait.

I also added this:


 * Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote the company. Generally, logos should be used only when the company and its logo are reasonably familiar (or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons).

This is perhaps so subjective as to be utterly useless; consider its inclusion a trial balloon. My concern here is to fend off teeming hordes of millions of people putting in 640x480-pixel logos for Sam's Central Street Gas and Convenience Mart (Buy Your Mass Lottery Tickets Here). Probably won't happen (particularly not as long as image uploads are disabled) and if it did, the policy probably wouldn't stop it, but, there it is. Dpbsmith 14:19, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with Generally, logos should be used only when the company and its logo are reasonably familiar (or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons). A logo is always topical for an encyclopedia entry, in part because it illustrates how the company is trying to present itself and that is a useful part of the description of every company. I think the general image guidelines will eliminate the use of excessively large logos. Jamesday 01:02, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Logos of other encyclopedias
User:Lupin has removed the following logo use guideline from the article: and asked for a justification of this rule. This happened in response to my removing the logo from the Encarta article and listing the logo on Images for deletion because of this guideline. (Note that Lupin and Lupo are two different users! :-) Lupo 09:55, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * In no case should the logo of any encyclopedia or other reference work be used in a Wikipedia article.

I have tentatively reinserted the logo use guideline, because I put it there in the first place and still think it is a darn good idea. I say this is tentative because this, and other portions of this page, have received very little discussion to date.

Here's why I think it's a good idea. Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer. I am not an amateur lawyer. I am not a particularly expert layperson in matters of intellectual property.


 * I don't believe there is any area of intellectual property law that is clearcut. Every decision to sail close to the wind involves some mental calculation. In the case of the use of a trademarked logo, we need to ask more than "is it legal?" We need to ask: do we think the trademark owner's lawyers think it's legal? If not, how how likely is it that the trademark owner will threaten lawsuit? Will sue? Will actually cause Wikipedia measurable pain? Any such matter that actually proceeds to litigation will produce actual pain, and the outcome depends on the interplay of an enormous amount of human judgement and the ability of the litigants to pay legal fees.
 * In the case of trademarks, much turns on the question of whether a naive consumer could possibly be confused by the use of the trademark. This, in turn, depends on whether the company allegedly infringing is conceivably considered to be in the same business as the company whose trademark it is using. For example:
 * Dell Books (now a branch of Bantam Doubleday Dell) would have to be nuts to try to sue Dell Computer, because nobody in their right mind thinks that Dell Computer publishes crossword puzzle magazines. Therefore it's very unlikely that they would even send a lawyer letter to Dell Computer,
 * In 1977, Apple, the Beatles' music company, would have had to be nuts to complain about Apple Computer Inc. using their name, because at that time nobody in their right mind saw any connection between computers and music.
 * Later, of course, Apple the music company did sue and settled out of court on the understanding that Apple would quit selling anything music-related--and at that time Apple did drop its MIDI gear.
 * I'm not quite sure what's happening now, but Apple darn well is in the music business now, and even though nobody thinks they have anything to do with the Beatles' company, there darn well is a trademark issue, and it's been rumored that Apple (Computer) paid Apple (Music) a hefty fee to keep them happy.
 * Infocom, the computer game company, used to publish a newsletter/ad/insert called "The New Zork Times" that was got up to look like a little newspaper with the title in Gothic text. They got a lawyer letter from The New York Times. They changed the name of their newsletter to The Status Line. Even though nobody in their right mind thought an 8-1/2 by 11 leaflet on text adventure games was connected to the Sulzberger colossus, I am sure that one of the reasons why Infocom went along quietly was that they realized that it was dangerous to use even a joking reference to a newspaper on something that looked like a newspaper.
 * Michael Robertson and Microsoft are locked in a serious battle over the use of the name Lindows. Even though anyone in their right mind ought to understand that Lindows is not Windows, it is a computer operating system, and the name is intended to convey that it is like Windows, with all the warm fuzzy feelings that convey. Nobody can guess how this one will turn out, but, right or wrong, using a name like Windows for a computer operating system is skating on thin ice, and I'm sure even Robertson would acknowledge that.
 * For no doubt good reasons, Robertson thinks it's worthwhile to fight such a battle. Wikipedia's purpose in life is not to try to fight some kind of battle about IP law. That's the job of the EFF, not Wikipedia.
 * So, even though nobody in their right mind would think that just because we put an Encarta logo on an article about Encarta would make a reader think that Wikipedia was trying to borrow Encarta's good name, I think that our policy ought to involve putting some prudent distance between us and possible trouble.
 * I thought and think that we were on pretty safe ground using logos of (say) Howard Johnson's, because nobody is going to try to buy Tendersweet frozen fried clam strips from Wikipedia.
 * I thought and still think that the logo of anything even vague encyclopedia-like makes Wikipedia far more vulnerable if the logo owner feels like causing trouble for Wikipedia.

So, for the time being, I'm putting that guideline back. Once more.

(And I gotta say that of all the encyclopedia logos to fool with, using an Encarta logo, when everyone knows that Microsoft is like a vicious, mad, rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth junkyard pit bull known for spirited assertion of whatever it thinks are its intellectual-property rights, is, well, not the height of prudence).

The real question is: in cases like this should we "be bold" and wait for the logo owner to issue a relatively polite lawyer letter that hopefully will never come? Or should we have a cautious policy in place which, in case of trouble we can point to, and a record of removing contributions that violate policy?

And, in conclusion, may I quote good old Author Unknown:


 * "Here's to the memory of old John Jay
 * He died defending his right of way
 * He was right as rain as he rolled along
 * But he's just as dead now as if he'd been wrong."

Dpbsmith 20:39, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting point which hadn't occurred to me. Are there any wikipedians known to have the relevant legal expertise to decide if this is justified or simply paranoia?


 * If the decision to keep the guideline is made, perhaps the pictures on the pages Nordisk familjebok, Wikinfo and 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica should be reviewed.


 * Another question that occurs to me is that if there is a legal threat from having a page with Encarta's icon, is there not a similar legal threat from having a page titled 'Encarta'? It seems to me that a similar case for confusion could be made. Lupin 22:20, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello. I came here from Wikipedia talk:General disclaimer. In case they help, here are my thoughts.
 * 1) Wikinfo's image is uploaded by Fred Bauer, who is the founder and owner of the project. There is a fair chance that the very owner of the logo's copyright (& trademark right if that exists) is giving wikipedia a GFDL permission. And considering that Fred's project is a friendly fork from Wikipedia, it is hardly surprising.
 * 2) Some say logos' informational value cannot clearly be verbalized, but here are some (not all) values verbalized. I personally think logo informs us of many things. It could help readers to associate/ identify certain products & services to an organization. It may be a subject of cultural analysis - logos of different ages, industries, or societies could be compared by someone.
 * 3) Finally, I am not a lawyer, and I know very little about trademarks, but my naive guess is that use of trademarks is problematic when the area of business or service is overlapping. When Wikipedia as an encyclopedia uses some other encyclopedia's trademark, that could lead to a violation. When Wikipedia as an encyclopedia uses some ice candy bar's logo, that is not likely to be in violation. Trademarks might be registered for specific of area(s) of business. Trademark owner has the exclusive right to use the registered trademark in that specified area(s), and some related areas maybe, but not all areas of the society. The article Trademark seems to be in agreement with my understanding. (Though I could well be wrong). So regarding the current policy in discussion, I think there is some ground to keep it as it is. I am not sure how to handle international issues here. Some trademarks are not internationally registered, though it is probably internationally copyrighted (because of the Berne Convention, etc.), do we want to apply the same policy to those images at English Wikipedia?
 * 4) As with other images, it would also be good to clarify the copyright status of the image (GFDL, fair use, etc.) for downstream users. It helps wikipedians active in other languages (such as I) can make an informed decision whether or not to copy it to another wikipedia. Tomos 00:28, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Following Tomos using a logo from any source should be examined carefully before integrating it into Wikipedia content, just like fair use the use of other intellectual property is subject to the constraints of economic exploitation of such property. Should a logo be used purely for informational purposes that illuminate the history, meaning, source or corporate purpose of such logo such informational use should be contemplated in an encyclopedic context such as Wikipedia. There are many volunteers who are worried about "commercial" downstream use of Wikipedia content. Information does not exist in a vacuum, and thus there are times when informational content in Wikipedia is appropriate but it may raise some questions for other derivative works. That does not mean it violates the principles of the GFDL. It just means that anyone who adopts a Wikipedia article is going to have to decide for themselves if they are misusing someone else's property. I need to point out that even though I am a lawyer, this is not legal advice. It is just my personal observation. &#8212; &copy;   Alex756   07:55, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Logos as trademarks
Encyclopedia logos should be fine as long as they follow the other guidelines I would think. Fair use is for copyright. Is there something similar for registered trademarks? My assumption is if you are not using trademark to compete or influence the ability of the company in a financial way then the only protection they have is copyright and then fair use applies.

I'm assuming the restrictions on some goverment logos are like the ones on money, you are limited in size and color. I can't imagine any logo being completely outlawed. Gbleem 06:26, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be trademark not logo? Are all logos trademarks? Gbleem 06:26, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A logo, if sufficiently creative, can be copyrighted. It's also almost probably a trademark, so both aspects need to be considered. So, you need both a use which is fair in trademark law - not confusing to consumers - and a use which is fair use in copyright law - as purely informational use in articles about the company is almost certain to be. The reason to avoid them for other encyclopedias is to avoid giving works which have a strong financial incentive to harm us ammunition to use to produce a legal case against us, even though we'd expect to win such a case. Jamesday 13:54, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Because logos are trademarks the first point:
 * Corporate logos should be presumed to be trademarks.

should be:
 * Corporate logos should be presumed to be trademarks and should therefore always be labeled as such with the trademark character and the name of the trademark holder.

This is because trademark holders lose their rights (IANAL) if they don't enforce their trademark, i.e. insist they own it everywhere it appears. So long as Wikipedia publicly acknowledges a trademark it should be ok to use it. (Although the addition of copyright into the mix is another matter.) You see this sort of acknowledgement all the time in technical manuals, a boilerplate section at the beginning of the book that says "all are trademark their respective owners" or some such phrasing.--Kop 08:35, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wine Labels
I've been uploading some wine labels (see Big White House for an example) under the "logo" rationale. This strikes me as the sort of thing that's perfect under fair use, as the interest is both artistic (many people collect wine labels) and practical (you can easily find the bottle at a store). Does anyone know for certain whether this is or is not fair use? I could always delete them all if need be, but I'd rather not. :( --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:36, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. We're doing a similar thing over at WikiProject Beer --Sean &kappa;. &#x21D4; 20:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Copyright Logo (and slogans)
Hello all,
 * I strongly feel that Wikipedia rapidly becoming authoritative repository of unbiased, non-aligned and/or neutral-opinion knowledge repository, one should not restrict the knowledge in any form. Unless restricted by source of logos and slogans of organizations (including commercial organizations/companies) Wikipedia can accomodate them and continue to grow in all dimensions. It's successfull because it is not restricted because it is neutral/unbiased.
 * With regards,
 * -Harshal

Government logos
What about government logos, not a federal govt agency's, but in particular, a US city's logo or seal? I was hoping to add Vancouver, Washington 's logo (which is a stylized V) to the wikipedia article, but on their website they say all images, text, etc. are copyright the "City of Vancouver".. --Kvuo 21:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As a second part of this question, how are public domain, trademarked images handled? The Logos article states: "Specific U.S. 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."


 * What are the specific citations and scope for these laws? Are logos limited "in connection with commercial ventures or products in any way that suggests presidential support or endorsement"  (Grant Dixton, associate counsel to the president ), or is it a way to apply a pseudo-copyright to public domain materials?  In my case, a state agency has trademarked some very posh historical roadside markers.  Have we secured permission for [[Image:FBISeal.png|40px]], [[Image:USPresidentialSeal.jpg|40px]], or [[Image:Pennsylvania_state_seal.png|40px]]? Thanks, GChriss 21:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What about historical logos drawn by a third party?
Hi, I got a problem with multiple logos. Could anyone please give some advice? The situation is as follows:

Footbal club A used a logo until 1950. Person B created a computer drawing of that old-style logo and posted it on some forum. User C uploads it to Wikipedia with no licensing information. Are these logos fair use? Please consider:


 * Is there any creative work on part of Person B (the creator of the drawing) which could be protected? (I don't think so, but I'm not 100% sure as they didn't just photograph it; they actually "drew" it.)
 * The rules say to use a logo that represents the way the owner likes to present themselves. This is obviously not the case. Is that reason enogh not to include the logo (in some historical section of the article)?

Thanks for any ideas, --Glimz 00:56, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a fuzzy area on several counts. Trademark law generally does not apply to trademarks that are no longer used.  Copyright may exist in the old logo.  I would suggest that copyright does not exist in the drawing of it, because it is an attempt to copy the old logo as faithfully as possible.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Re the "rules:" the reason for the rule about using a logo "that represents the way the owner likes to present themselves" is pragmatic. IANAL. Regardless of legality, common sense says that a trademark owner is not likely even to bother threatening legal action unless they think the use of the trademark hurts them in some way. One way they can be hurt is if the use of the trademark could lead to consumer confusion, i.e. someone buying a "Rclex" watch under the misimpression that it is a Rolex. That's a very dangerous situation, because trademarks are a "defend it or lose it" issue, so company lawyers are like pitbulls in this kind of situation (e.g. The New York Times sent a nastygram to a computer game company that called their newsletter "The New Zork Times.") That situation mostly doesn't apply to Wikipedia.


 * A second way is if the trademark is somehow used as a way to attack the company or put them in a bad light. For example, suppose that one were to write an article about Nestle's in which the logo was positioned in the corner of a picture of a baby that had died from malnutrition or something like that. There are free-speech issues there, and the issue of a right to parody. I recall the EPRI sued some antinuclear group once that was using a parody of Reddy Kilowatt, but I don't remember the outcome. The use of logos or logo parodies in order to attack a company would in most case violate NPOV. Using a decent copy of the current logo, and using it in such a way that it neither promotes nor attacks the company is both prudent (with regards to the possibility of legal action) and NPOV.


 * This has nothing at all to do with historical logos which are fine and add to the article. The point is just that they should not be in the "lead" position of the article, as they are not the company's current "official portrait."


 * As for redrawn logos, again the question is "is this a good representation of the logo?" If the redrawing is just cleanup and tidying, I don't see why there would be a problem. The intent is not to require that the logo be obtained directly from an official source. Just that it should look like a good and accurate representation of the logo. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. So we should probably keep historical logos... What do you think, should they be marked as s or as  s within a new category? Since these logos are not used, they are not trademarks anymore; copyright will also expire one day. This puts them in a different category, doesn't it? (Of coure, since historical logos typically share design elements with the current one, they will probably never become free.) Glimz 16:26, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

another commonsense guideline
This one isn't in the list; could it be added? Logo images should always be surrounded by an image box and be labelled with a caption, to make it clear that the logo is being used as an illustration, not as a logo. Doops | talk 03:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Objection about using low resolution logos
By stating that only using low resoulution version of logos is fair use, I disagree. For example if you print a page containing a low resoultion logo, the result may distort tha logo so much you can't identify it at all. Also implying that resolution has any relevancy to fair use is irrelevant, it's the usage of said image that defines fair use. → Aza Toth 18:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's not forget that companies pay millions of dollars a year to plaster their logos over almost anything they can. There's no reason to tie our hands with Copyright paranoia when there hasn't been a single complaint about logo use by anyone as far as I know. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

User Pages and Templates vs Articles?
I've made two templates for user pages. Template:Uncyclopedian and Template:H2G2Researcher. Initially they had little logos for the web sites they exist for people to link to. But now people are citing this policy to say that the use of these logos violates Wikipedia policy even when the exact same images are used in articles so that User Pages are now more restricted in their content than regular articles. Now I ask you, does that make sense? There must be something I'm fundamentally not getting about copyright law here, or else something really stupid has been going on with how site policy is written. --00:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

U.S. trademark law section
I have added the following section, and it has been reverted away twice without being moved here by someone who apparently thinks it is a major change. In fact, the statutes and case law below predate the creation of this guideline, so this has always been true the entire time this guideline has been in effect. Therefore, I will be replacing it soon. --James S. 15:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

U.S. trademark law
U.S. law protects the use of trademarks by nonowners for purposes of criticism and commentary. First Amendment considerations override any expressive, noncommercial use of trademarks. "The Constitution is not offended when the [Maine] antidilution statute is applied to prevent a defendant from using a trademark without permission in order to merchandise dissimilar products or services. ... The Constitution does not, however, permit the range of the antidilution statute to encompass the unauthorized use of a trademark in a noncommercial setting such as an editorial or artistic context." (emphasis added) L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Pubs., Inc., 811 F.2d 26, 31, 33 (1st Cir. 1987.)

Similarly, the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 does not apply to the "noncommercial use" of a famous mark. 15 U.S.C. 1125(c)(4)(B). The U.S. Supreme Court has defined "commercial speech" as "speech which ... propose[s] a commercial transaction." ''Virginia Pharmacy Ed. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.,'' 425 U.S. 748, 762 (1976.)

The only limit on this right is whether someone might think that the commentary was produced by the trademark owner. "[A]n author certainly would have a First Amendment right to write about the subject of the Boy Scouts and/or Girl Scouts. However, this right is diluted by trademark law insofar as that author cannot present her subject in a manner that confuses or misleads the public into believing, through the use of one or more trademarks, that those organizations have produced or sponsored the work in question." (emphasis added) Girl Scouts of the United States v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., 808 F. Supp. 1112 at 1121, n. 12 (S.D.N.Y. 1992.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrcprm2026 (talk • contribs)


 * Since trademarks can be modified for non-commercial use, does this still apply, in a practical sense, to Wikipedia? Per Jimbo's message here, it seems that, though modification is by no means prevented by copyright law, these images must still be allowed for commercial use on Wikipedia. These three precedents seem overemphasized in this guideline, as, generally, these images still can't be used on Wikipedia and therefore likely don't mean much. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 07:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Football club logos
Ed g2s has removed all football club logos from all tournment pages like Royal League 2005-06, UEFA Cup Finals and probably many more. Is this really necesary? Logos are not removed on European Cup and Champions League finals. Is it a reason for this? Arnemann 20:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably. Logos are intended to be used to illustrate the team in question (e.g. on pages about the team itself).  While I haven't looked at every edit of his, it looked like the team logos were being used more for decoration and weren't really essential.  I would suggest that the team logos on European Cup and Champions League finals be removed as well.  JYolkowski // talk 20:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Logos with slogans
I would like the following to be considered for inclusion as a guideline: "Logos that contain corporate slogans should be omitted in favour of equivalent logos that do not." This desire was sparked by reviewing the article Safeway Inc. Previously this article displayed prominently the logo Image:Safeway-logo.gif, which contained the company logo and its slogan, "Ingredients for life." It has since been replaced with Image:Safeway-logo.png, which only contains the visual logo. This additional guideline would stem from a current guideline which states "Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote the company." Kurieeto 17:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Many corporate logos do not include slogans in their logos. If they do, then it is usually a promotional logo that is used only for web or other publications. It may take a bit more work to find a logo without the slogan, but it would be preferable than using the version with the slogan. However, some logos have a slogan as a part their inherit design. In this case, I do not believe we would want to ban or redesign the logo. One example: Image:5ADay_logo.gif should be allowed if this is the only version available to the public. As long the policy statement (as Kurieeto worded it above: "Logos that contain corporate slogans should be omitted in favour of equivalent logos that do not.") does not mean censorship, but a preference of non-slogan logos over those that have them then I don’t see any problem with it. --Adam Clark(User_Talk) (email) 02:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the guideline proposed does not mean censorship. It's been a week since the original proposal was made and no other issues have been raised, so I've added this guideline to the list. Kurieeto 23:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Caption guidelines for logos
Currently, the sole guideline regarding captions for logos is: "Usually, the current logo should be the logo presented. When a historical logo is used, the caption should indicate this." User:Doops proposed above that "Logo images should always be surrounded by an image box and be labelled with a caption, to make it clear that the logo is being used as an illustration, not as a logo." I second Doops' idea, on the grounds that captions would remove the chance of logos in articles being interperted as anything other than encyclopedic illustrations. It would also further address the guideline that "Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote the company." Furthermore there seems to have been support for the mandatory captioning of logos back in previous discussions here (Initial discussion and Continued discussion), but I can't pinpoint from those discussions why such a guideline was never implemented. Kurieeto 17:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that a policy requiring that old logo images be “surrounded by an image box and be labeled with a caption” makes perfect sense. Not only does it aid the reader in identifying the image, but it will also help identify the change especially if it was a recent one made by the company. In fact, I would support requiring an image box and caption for virtually all visual aids (logos, photos, diagrams etc...) in articles to help with identification. This is how most other mediums do it and it helps to clarify why the visual aids are included in the first place. Adam Clark(User_Talk) (email) 01:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been a week since the original proposal was made and there have been no objections, so I've added this guideline to the list. Kurieeto 23:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The frame looks extremely ugly in Template:Infobox Company. It's annoying to see that this change has been railroaded through on this page and then immediately cited as if it were policy on Microsoft. I object to this requirement. Logos outside of infoboxes should have captions, but inside the infobox it is implied that the logo is the company's current logo, used for illustration. Rhobite 17:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What's annoying is having one's proposal and work termed "railroading", despite the making of several efforts to invite discussion on the matter. Additionally, the frame was never cited as policy, just as a guideline.  Which it was.


 * As an alternative for consideration in regard to captioning logos in Infoboxes, a caption field could be added to Template:Infobox Company, as is present in Template:Infobox Band and Template:Infobox Celebrity. Kurieeto 17:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I just think it was wrong to modify this guideline after such a short discussion, with only one other person. The header says that "many editors agree with [the guideline] in principle", but I don't think enough Wikipedians have expressed their opinions on the proposal. A caption in the infobox would be a better solution, although I don't think it is necessary for the vast majority of companies. Illustrating a company's logo doesn't violate NPOV or fair use. Rhobite 18:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I added it after one week because no other individuals were coming forward with comments, and 7 days is the timeframe alotted in other venues for discussion, such as at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. You make a valid point about the header though.  For now, would you agree to the returning of an edited guideline regarding captioning logos, such as as you said above, "Logos outside of infoboxes should have captions."? Kurieeto 18:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Trademark law
What does everyone think about removing the section on trademark law? I don't think it adds anything to this guideline, for the following reasons: I think that adding a few paragraphs of court precedent at the end is simply redundant (discussing fair use), irrelevant (discussing non-commercial use), and solely offers confusion to the masses on Wikipedia with no understanding of copyright law. I will be making the changes soon if there are no strong objections. In addition, I am looking at copyediting this page for greater accessibility, namely by dividing that long list of bullet points into subsections &mdash; the procedure for using a logo, what to do if there are objections, formatting of the logo, etc., and was wondering if anyone had any suggestions or input. Thanks! &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 20:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The first paragraph effectively says that we can use logos in article because of fair use, which is redundant with the rest of the guideline. It continues by discussing use in a non-commercial editorial or artistic context. Non-commercial use only images are not allowed on Wikipedia, so this guideline has no relevance to what is allowed. "Editorial or artistic context" is the same as fair use, regardless.
 * 2) The second paragraph only discusses non-commercial use. Again, Wikipedia explicity forbids the use of this kind of image, so we must fall back on fair use which is already extensively discussed.
 * 3) The third paragraph discusses how we shouldn't use logos to mislead people into thinking that the company has sponsored the work in question. This is Wikipedia, and obviously we are steadfastly against using it as a venue for advertisement and the like, so there is no chance of this happening.

Logos in stub templates?
This is an area I'm just not sure on - is a stub template a permissible location for a logo? The stub I'm referring to is: Template:melbourne-rail-stub. Whilst the logo is probably the ideal icon for the template, I'm unsure as to whether it is an allowed use. Looking forward to clarification --Evan C (Talk) 13:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that we can only use a logo "to illustrate the corporation, sports team, or organization in question" (quoted from the template logo template). As long as the stub template is used only on those articles that are about subjects under the same governing entity (company, team, government, ect...) then there shouldn't be a problem. For example, you should be able to use the Oscar Mayer corporate logo on a stub templates that are put on articles about products it produces like Lunchables. Also, check out [Category:Canada government stubs]. Note that uses a tagged image instead of the  tag that we use, but the legal provisions are similar.

As far as your Melbourne rail issue, I'm pretty sure that the use of that logo is fine--after a cursory examination of its use. For design issues, a logo without the slogan would look much better when it is shown that small (and such a logo is preferred in any use--see above discussions). Any other thoughts? --Adam Clark(User_Talk) (email) 09:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that - I've uploaded a sloganless version of the logo, it's a bit clearer too (having been rendered directly from a vector version). I think I'll note on the stub's page that, as a guide, it should only be used on pages relating to Metlink connected services, etc - not on V/Line stations, for example. --Evan C (Talk) 13:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Fair use images are not allowed in templates, or anywhere outside the main article namespace. A company's logo should only really be used on the company's page, and anywhere where the logo is the subject of the text. ed g2s &bull; talk 01:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Bah! OK then - I've replaced it with an icon based on an image I made myself - you can't say that's not permitted! --Evan C (Talk) 04:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If the image you made yourself was a manual copy or derivative of the original logo (in copyright sense) or was confusingly similar to the original logo (in trademark sense), then it is not permitted in templates or on Commons. Try putting your stub category image on Commons and see what they think. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 21:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The image I made myself is a vector artwork of one of our trains - not at all a logo :) --Evan C (Talk) 07:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Resource for logos.
Site with nearly 5000 logos in Adobe Illustrator format. They seem to be copyrighted, but if fair use is being claimed, that shouldn't be an issue, should it? grendel|khan 00:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Taking photos of logos and signs
Hello, I have added a photograph of a logo at Society of Professional Journalists - what do you think about that? How about if we took photos of logos and put them up? So, for example, if we went to the local Safeway, took a photo of its sign, and posted it, it would be a depiction of their logo. The photo is our own work. What are people's thoughts about this? Guroadrunner 12:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * From a copyright point of view: This would not change the fact that we are simply reproducing the logos. A verbatim photograph does not possess the "original creativity" needed to make it an original work.  Suppose that I was an artist with a hot new painting on display in my gallery.  A visitor walks by, snaps a picture, and makes available high--quality copies to the general public.  This would undercut my profits---and courts would be sympathetic to my case.  Fair Use is a bit of an exception, but it allows only very narrow permissions. Hope this helps, GChriss 20:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would consider a logo different than an artistic piece, but I see your point. What are other's thoughts on this? Guroadrunner 19:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the photo would need to exhibit uniqueness - additional creativity or skill. So, if you took the photo taking in the whole building, or the area and supports on which the sign was installed, that would probably be enough to make it a photo of a sign et al, and not just a copy of a logo. Note, however, that I'm unsure if this is entirely accurate under US law (it is under Australian law). --Evan C (Talk) 12:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a sentence at WP:NOR that kind of confuses me on this issue: Wikipedia editors have always been encouraged to take photos or draw pictures and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free licence, to illustrate articles. (emphasis added) This doesn't seem to really apply to logos, at least not in current practice. It seems to be more intended for "original works" (such as taking a picture of a traffic jam to illustrate the concept of traffic jam) and not pursuits to obtain images of trademarks like logos. However, even though a photo of a sign like "Welcome to Florida" might not constitute an original work in the context of this discussion, it arguably would from the standpoint of the above sentence. User-made reproductions of logos seem to be in a minor gray area, but I'm reading into this and other things that it is good to use. There's a suggestion at WP:FU that user-made images are actually preferred, which contradicts this page's policy that images from web sites should be used where possible, and in any case doesn't make sense with regard to logos - especially if they're logos displayed off of a screenshot from TV or a computer screen, since that has some disturbing similarities to piracy. (end mindless, confusing, ignorant, pointless, and probably thread-killing rant that has bored everyone to sleep at this point) --Morgan Wick 03:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Boring rant, nah. I am inclinded to agree with the above, as long as you don't zoom in too closely on the logo.  Taking a zoomed-in picture of a copyrighted/trademarked roadsign (e.g., McDonalds), not cool.  Taking a picture of the nearby road, cars, and sign is just fine.  GChriss 18:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

SVG
Can logos be uploaded under fairuse, in SVG? I say this because User:9cds has recently speedy deleted several images I uploaded (I extracted it from a PDF) and told me you can't. BUT there are many popular article (e.g. Microsoft) which have logos which are in SVG. Can or can't they be SVG? - Рэд  хот  20:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Resampling the SVG logos into bitmaps and removing the original would be better idea. The quality of the article would remain the same, and we would not be handing out the exact high--resolution logo, something not permitted under fair use.  Hope this helps, GChriss 04:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree, if the SVG file is of a low-resolution when uploaded surely that satisfies fair use. After all a PNG file can be resized with very little loss of quality using image-editing software. SVG is a far better file format for simple logos, and it's use should be encouraged in my opinion. Alexj2002 09:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * SVG is, by nature, of an infinitely high resolution. It may be mapped to a certain size, but you could blow the logos up and stick them on the side of a garbage truck if you wanted to! This is not possible with PNG - without going into effort in tracing the logo, it will pixellate as soon as you try to increase it in size.
 * Anyway, only a PNG (or similar) of the approximate size used in the article (an an appropriate size at that - only as necessary) will satisfy the fair use policy. --Evan C (Talk) 11:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well in that case, why is nothing being done about more obvious examples. as I pointed out, Microsoft is in SVG? I agree that an SVG can RESULT in non-fairuse, but I completely disagree that it, in itself, is not fairuse, once its not rendered high-res. - Рэд хот  12:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Resolution is defined as "The detail an image holds. The term applies equally to digital images, film images, and other types of images. Higher resolution means more image detail." (from Image resolution). Therefore a SVG created from a low-resolution PNG file becomes a low-resolution SVG file as no extra detail was added. The fact the size can be changed without distortion is irrelvant because resolution relates to the detail, as opposed to the size. Alexj2002 15:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But there's a problem with that. If you trace a PNG, the SVG made is always slightly distorted from the original. Therefore you've modified it, which isn't fairuse. I'm talking about where, either the company has made a vector freely available, or one is embedded within a PDF they may have made available (in which case it can be exported using things like Adobe Illustrator). - Рэд  хот  15:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, but should a vector graphic be freely available, then it would likely be of an equivalent resolution to a PNG file. Thus my previous post (excepting the creation of the image by tracing) is still correct. Alexj2002 15:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * From the guidelines:
 * "Defaced logos or logo parodies should be used with care and not given undue prominence. Parodies of logos can be used under fair use in an article about a parody site or campaign against some aspect of the operations of the company, but in an article about the company itself, a parody is less likely to be as important and less likely to be fair use."
 * I believe an SVG version could just about fall under this heading. Note: "Parodies of logos can be used under fair use". Yes, it says it's "less likely to be as important and less likely to be fair use" in the main article, but as it is the same as the actual logo, with possibly very minor modifications, I still think it would qualiy as fair use. Also, "not given undue prominence", I think prominence would be due in this case. --LorianTC 16:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I should've made it clear that I agreed with all that, except the bit about tracing. - Рэд хот  15:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there is a misunderstanding of the Scalable Vector Graphics format here. SVG files can be described as a collection of patterns that can be rendered at any size/resolution.  Restated, the file itself is resolution-less even if it has a default display size.  In our example, Wikipedia is redistributing an exact copy of the Microsoft logo, which is definitely a copyright no-no:  Microsoft does not have a "better" copy than we do, and they may submit a legal take-down request.  Even if we were to trace a PNG logo to create a new SVG logo, it would not possess the "original creativity" needed to make it a new work; it is still a reproduction, even if slightly distorted.


 * Fair use is intentionally tough to justify.
 * Hope this helps, GChriss 17:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I also listed Image:Microsoft_logotype.svg as a copyright problem, if there are others please let me know. Thanks! GChriss 17:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone's trying to make it not fair use. Just some people don't not the fact that it is not "low resolution". Though you make a good point about it beging resolution-less. --LorianTC 17:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So what? Should we start removing all images that are SVG under fairuse? It should also be noted on the main project page. Shouldn't it? Like where it says:
 * "Where possible, logos should be uploaded in PNG format. JPEG format should not be used as it is lossy and results in a less professional appearance."
 * Should it now read:
 * "Where possible, logos should be uploaded in PNG format. JPEG format should not be used as it is lossy and results in a less professional appearance. SVG should not be used for fairuse logos. Please convert these to a low-resolution PNG" or something like that - Рэд хот  08:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Surely re-saving an SVG file as a low-resolution PNG will also breach fair use, as it is effectively modifying the original image. Additonally, the text given by Wikipedia is "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of logos" Storage of high resolution (if resolution is being defined as the size not detail as it would seem people are doing) is not mentioned so providing the usage is low resolution that should be OK under the current wording.Alexj2002 14:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of the wording change. Converting from SVG into reduced-resolution PNG would not modify the image itself, just change the format it is stored in.  (The reverse is generally not true, as PNG-->SVG is technically difficult.)  Storage of high resolution images qualifies as "use" from a legal standpoint, and our policy needs to be based in law.  Wikipedia has limits on what it can host.  Thanks again, GChriss 18:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, it is possible to have a extremely--high resolution image that is tiny (900 dpi, 1in x 1in, large file), an extremely--high resolution image that is huge (900dpi, 300in x 300 in, huge file), extremely--low resolution image that is tiny (60 dpi, 1in x 1in, GIF--like file), or an extremely--low resolution image that is huge (60dpi, 300in x 300in, large GIF file). SVG is none of the above.  GChriss 18:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The dimensions of the image do affect its resolution. An image that's 1x1 will have terrible resolution, while a higher one, say 1000x1000 will be better. But something definitly has to be mentioned on this page (not the talk page obviously) and on the page on fair use. How else are people supposed to know? - Рэд  хот  19:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, a bitmaped image that is enlarged will lose resolution unless it is resampled. But resolution and size are two independent properties.  The way to tell is to find out if the file size increases, indicating no loss of resolution.  That doesn't mean that you have a more detailed picture, however.  GChriss 20:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My main point is that although resolution and size are independent of each other, the size can restrict the resolution. Like I said, you can't put much resolution in a 1x1 image - Рэд хот  10:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)