Trademark worries, again

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Trademark worries, again

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
We need a policy on trademarked images to be clearly defined, and if
there is one, it needs to be publicised somewhere prominant - are
trademarked logos which claim to be under a free license really free, or
are they violating copyright? Case in point, I've just deleted
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Exquisite-redhat.png and moved
it to en: per an offical request from Redhat.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

signature.asc (568 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trademark worries, again

Matthew Brown-5
I'm not sure if we have a policy or not.

Personally, drawn logos like this are unacceptable for commons, and
contrary to established practise which is to use them under fair use
on the en: Wikipedia.

I am inclined to also count in this category photos of an object
bearing a trademarked logo in which the whole intent is to picture the
logo.  Quite aside from trademark law, such images are likely to count
as copyright infringement if the subject is copyrighted, which
many/most logos will be.  Logos first used in the United States when
the law requiring a copyright statement for copyright protection was
still in effect may not be protected by copyright law, but I'd say we
should simply be safe and avoid all marginal cases.

Aside from those cases, I would personally not bar an image from
commons because a trademarked logo or indeed other trademarked aspect
appears in it.

Any photo in which a trademarked item appears in it MAY not be usable
in all commercial contexts, but I do not think that commons should
only consist of images safe to use in commercial advertising.

In an encyclopedia context, or any reference work, such appearance of
trademarked items is quite legal, I believe.

-Matt

On 2/8/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <[hidden email]> wrote:

> We need a policy on trademarked images to be clearly defined, and if
> there is one, it needs to be publicised somewhere prominant - are
> trademarked logos which claim to be under a free license really free, or
> are they violating copyright? Case in point, I've just deleted
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Exquisite-redhat.png and moved
> it to en: per an offical request from Redhat.
>
> --
> Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
> "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
> Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l