Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Logos/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Logo tags TFD

A number of logo tags have been nominated for deletion. Please see Template:Zoo logos and other to help build a consensus on the best way to manage fair use logo templates. Thank you. BigDT 20:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Logoturka.com - Logobank

Vectorel company logotypies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.99.157.19 (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Can logos created by users from scratch be freely licensed?

For example: Image:Weston logo.png.

Another one: Can logotypes created by a user from scratch derived from descriptions and/or logos be not copyrighted, and hence by freely licensed? An example: Image:DLSU M Logotype.png. --Howard the Duck 12:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to raise this question. The practice has become widespread, with minor examples such as Image:CMWYSlogo.png, as well as very prolific instances such as Image:The Godfather.png. –Unint 02:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I gave a full answer here. Short answer: no. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Freely licensed logos

What should be done about logos that can be proven to be licensed under a free license like the GPL? One example is Image:GPLLinksysLogo.png, which I uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons along with a proof that it is a GPL'd logo. Should this policy be updated to handle logos where freely licensed logos can be found? Jesse Viviano 06:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No response on this one. Maybe because your question is unclear. Can you please be more specific in what you are proposing?↔NMajdan•talk 14:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I think Jesse is asking one or more of the following:
  • The guideline says to assume all logos are copyrighted; however, what if proof can be found that the logo is indeed public domain?
  • What if a PD version of a logo can be found? Should it be preferred over non-PD versions, like other images are?
  • If so, should extremely outdated logos be exempt from this guideline?
  • If the answer is yes to these questions, shouldn't that information be in this guideline?
My own personal answer, if you haven't guessed, is Yes to all the above.
-- trlkly 05:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

SVG logos?

The template states that logos should only be in low resolution to qualify as fair use; WP:LOGO states that logos should not be in SVG format. However, there are numerous (fair-use tagged) logos in [[Category:Images which should be in SVG format]]. Should the {{SVG}} tag be removed from these logos? (This would also help clear a little of the backlog from IWSBISF.) Stannered 13:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think they should as well. SVG images can be rendered into any size, including sizes that would violate Wikipedia's terms of Fair Use. So, yes, I believe the request for logos to be converted to SVG should be denied. This also might be a good question to ask at WT:FU.↔NMajdan•talk 14:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I think not having SVG logos amounts to copyright paranoia. Logos will always be trademarked and copyrighted. This will never change and free versions will never be available. Fair use actually should only be applied to photographs, where there is commercial gain to be sought from high quality photos, not corporate logos which are heavily protected by laws. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I would disagree, although I don't have much of a backround in copyright law. Surely this statement:
"Overly high-resolution versions of logos should be avoided, however, as they are less likely to be fair use. Do not use SVG formats, as this can infringe on fair use. However, if vector artwork is available, they can be rasterized to a screen-resolution PNG format."
on the project page must have been put there for a reason? All logos are copyrighted, and unlicensed copyrighted content can only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use, no? Stannered 16:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference how fair use is applied. One is for photographs, where the fair use criteria makes sense. (We are borrowing content which is used only for illustrative purposes). Photographs taken are by default copyrighted. Logos on the other hand are not only copyrighted, but also trademarked. So, if you're using a 60x60 px logo, or a 600x600 px logo, the outcome is the same: You cannot use it for commercial gain or misrepresentation of the company. I don't think flags, emblems and seals are too different from logos. Yet, we have no problems with svg flags etc. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The only SVG flags I've seen have been marked as some kind of Public Domain; or licensed by the creator of the file. I've had less to do with emblems and seals, but from what I've seen there, I think the same problem as with logos exists. Stannered 20:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The main purpose for the "low resolution" wording is to address the fourth clause of US fair use law... whether the image can be used as a direct substitute for the work (and particularly with things like piracy, whether we have high enough resolution images to assist pirates in printing up DVD covers that look like convincingly close versions of the real thing). "Resolution" is something that applies to raster images only... the analogous equivalent in SVG's is whether the image is detailed enough to be printed out at high resolution, NOT whether it can be resized to arbitrary resolution (because, indeed, raster images can similarly be resized to any resolution, and particularly raster images that contain only straight lines, such as flags, can be trivially resized to any resolution without loss of detail). For normal fair use SVG's, I usually recommend that the way to comply with our fair-use standards is to make sure the SVG isn't overly detailed, and if it is, to use something like Inkscape's "Simplify" command (it can be used multiple times to greater effect). For logos however, we also have the suggestion that they be "accurate and have a high-quality appearance". The best way to comply with both is to make sure that an SVG has enough detail to be rendered at the (small) resolution the logo will be used in the desired article or articles, but not significantly more detail. In some cases though, some logos are so simple to begin with (eg. the Nike Swoosh) that it's not possibly to simplify it without distorting it (but the same thing is true for the raster version too.... a moderately sophisticated image scaler could resize a raster version to any size without loss of detail). --Interiot 18:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to jump in the discussion late. I added the "Do not use SVG formats" clause quoted above by Stannered simply because it is unnecessary to have vector artwork of copyrighted material. I added this clause after some other users had concerns for logos I uploaded in SVG format (this page previously made no mention about SVGs, in particular). So I rasterized the vector logos into a good-enough resolution PNG and uploaded those instead. Although I do advocate the use of SVG formats for simple graphics, such as logos, this license is for copyrighted fair use logos which is respected using low resolution (e.g., non-vector). True, some ©logos on WP are in SVG, and several have compatible licenses to allow this (example), but others don't. For what it's worth, it is probably best to be safe and not encourage SVGs for these logos. Just because someone has a vector artwork of logo X doesn't mean that it should be here. Wikipedia is not an archive for high quality logos. Hey, even the Wikipedia logo made by Nohat isn't available as an SVG (as far as I know at least). Regarding Interiot's opinion and recent edit to the front page, this clause was reworded slightly. I really don't think it is necessary to be SVG obsessed on ©logos, so I think it was appropriate to flat out state "do not use SVG formats". It's completely unnecessary, since great quality screen quality can be presented using PNG formats with much less risk. I'll revert back to that, unless anyone has any valid objections or amendments. +mwtoews 01:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It's appropriate to discourage people from spending very much time at all converting between various formats. It's appropriate to mention that time spent is more or less wasted because all the work in the world doesn't make the image free or usable by others. But it's not appropriate to say flat out that vector formats aren't allowed. There's no risk. Vector images are just another imperfect mathematical representation of photons flying through the air, no different from raster images. --Interiot 00:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I see what your saying, and I also think SVG images are great (I've submitted several myself, some of which were copyright logos and are now deleted and replaced with PNG versions). However the risk SVG versions of copyrighted logos bears is that they may potentially represent a perfect reproduction of the material. It is always safer to tread on something that is imperfect, and personally I'd rather have that imperfection be in the form of a good-quality rasterized logo rather than simplified logo (which could potentially look worse than a rasterized version of the original). Rather than detailing the fine-line of rasterized vs imperfect SVGs, it might be easier to simply say "no SVGs", unless the logo license is compatible or permission is granted from the copyright holder (or perhaps some other clauses .. please fill me in). Do these amendments seem like a better route? From a technical standpoint, although it may sadden SVG enthusiasts to see "no SVGs", a 200px wide PNG loads pretty fast and does not take up much memory, and can even have a smaller file size in situations where the vector format is overly detailed. Furthermore, I don't think there is any need for these logos to scale to large sizes on Wikipedia, so a 200px PNG should be good enough to illustrate the logo of company X. +mwtoews 05:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If you haven't already, take a look at Template talk:ShouldBeSVG, where we've had a big discussion of this issue. Stannered 09:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit by anonymous IP/Consensus on SVG images

Although there's been no specific consensus on the use of SVG logos, both the historical Wikipedia:Fair use/ Definition of "low resolution" and Wikipedia:Fair use state that "Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). This includes the original in the Image: namespace." SVG images are arbitrarily high resolution, so are clearly at odds with this consensus. Stannered 19:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

SVG Resolution

In my understanding of vector images, SVG files do not have a resolution. Therefore, it is impossible that they are ever too high resolution to be of fair use. They could be outputted in a resolution that is too high, but then it is the responsibility of the person adding the image to the article to use an acceptable size. Also, there are many simple text-based logos that would be more efficiently stored in a vector file as opposed to a raster one. -KingpinE7 03:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember we were removing all SVG logos because they are a breach of our criteria: SVG don't have resolution, thus allowing high-quality high-resolution images from being created, when we explicitly request images to be of low-resolution. It could be said that, in example, showing a small thumbnail for an image and linking it to a 7MB image. -- ReyBrujo 20:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Trademarks within original creations

Should the {{non-free logo}} tag and a fair-use rationale be used for original works that contain prominently displayed trademarks? There is a dispute between me and another editor about this issue at Image:Newspapers.jpg. I suppose this may relate to the "Can logos created by users from scratch be freely licensed?" discussion above. nadav 20:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Both Nadav and I agreed that this guideline should mention the trademark template. I've added the information here. jbolden1517Talk 00:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

{{non-free logo}} should be for copyrighted logos only

I've noticed that the {{non-free logo}} tag has been used on federal government logos (1) and on simple text logotypes (2) that are ineligible for copyright. To prevent free images from being tagged as non-free, I added the word copyrighted to the guideline for using the template. For when logos that are definitely not copyrighted, we have the {{Trademark}} tag, as jbolden1517 said above. nadav 02:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we elaborate on this? I would like to upload a county seal, but all the ones I am seeing use the {{non-free logo}} template. That doesn't seem correct to me either, but the last section of the Logos article seems to state that U.S. government logos might be completely prohibited for reproduction without consent? I think the original poster was on the right track here, these images shouldn't be eligible for copyright.--Inarius 18:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Counties are not the federal government. The choice of template depends on whether the copyright has expired, for example life of author + 70 years. County seals may be heraldic, in which case a more free version can be made using the blazon, though its use may be restricted by heraldic and trademark law, or a specific law (such as anti-fraud) in your jurisdiction. Wikipedia volunteers often make and donate such free heraldic images. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Captions for all Logos

Presently under discussion again here:

Previous discussions:

There seems to be a lot of resistance to simply captioning logos, always pointing to the "Special situations" exception on the captions style guideline, but there is no indication that the exception was ever arrived at via consensus. The only reasoning I have read against captions is that they are "ugly", whereas the current logo guideline here, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and policy support captions: WP:NPOV#Bias - commercial; WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation - assert facts; WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone - selection & organization of facts. Please provide your input there.--In1984 22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% that they should always be captioned to prevent any trademark problems. However, I reverted the additional requirement about non-logo material being explicitly identified since it is not sufficiently clear. For example, there are many pictures of logos in their natural environments (e.g. a picture of a university banner waving, a picture of a newspaper page that focuses on the nameplate, a picture of the symbol on an automobile). All these cases have nothing remarkable about their non-logo material and there is no special reason I can see to point it out in a caption. Also there are many freely licensed images that have small logos contained in them somewhere as part of the background, and this may confuse people into thinking the photos aren't free. Perhaps if this was clarified first, then it could be added. nadav (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I added the The caption should identify any non-logo material. to the last line before trademark law which states: Logos that contain slogans should be omitted in favour of equivalent logos that do not. Navdav1 undid it suggesting discussion. When a logo without a slogan or some other non-logo material is unavailable, how should it be captioned? My preference is to identify the part that is not the logo such as I did with McDonald's. The question seems to be how to phrase that in the guideline.--In1984 23:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about the general case. In the particular case of the mcdonalds logo, I suggest the slogan be removed so it more closely follows the guideline. You could either modify the image directly, or perhaps replace it with [1] or the image [2]. nadav (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, the issue I have with the addition of this provisions is that it undermines the point of the use of infoboxes in the use of articles. The conceptual ideal of an infobox would be to give the reader the conceptual view of information about a certain subject including logo's, for example. The use of the logo or presentation of information in that area already explains its use and relation to the product in large. If anything, some infoboxes include image descriptions (example) which present as a small, italic font underneath the image use, which could be implemented if the need for descriptions around logos in infoboxes becomes a requirement. The use of caption boxes around images within infoboxes doesn't appear right and seems an overuse of the function, using a box within another box to show information already lead to in the first box itself. Otherwise, the use of captions around logo's not used in infoboxes (example) is something I agree with to create a clear understand of the use of the image. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 00:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I was interpreting "captions" to include the italicised labels you refer to. If this wasn't clear, then I suggest the wording of the guideline be changed to make it so. nadav (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Chris, I agree it is not as pretty as the infobox Television solution you link to, and I would definitely prefer that. If someone is a template expert here that can make the adjustment to the existing Infobox_Company, I will certainly support it and use it. Until then, the less elegant way is all that is available.--In1984 02:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The use doesn't even seem to follow any sort of flow, which many other elements on this site do. In the current moment, I still can't believe we have reached a consensus on the issue in large, the three or four of us here isn't one. Please, let's wait and try to get an actual discussion on this issue before anyone goes stream rolling through every infobox featuring page. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 02:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I have added a caption to the Template:Infobox Company template. However, it seems to only appear when the logo attribute is used instead of the deprecated company_logo. I don't know how to fix it. nadav (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I will use it where it works.--In1984 02:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Never mind. It looks like it was working. Does McDonald's look ok now? nadav (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like it works for company_logo, but not for logo. I was hoping for a caption line, but that works as a quick fix that can be quickly removed just as fast if need be.--In1984 03:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Chris, actually, the archives here and this guideline page indicate there was already a consensus for captions. It appears to have forked and subverted via the Wikipedia:Captions guideline. Policy still takes priority over both, and even the the few clearly agreed upon elements of the Captions guideline agree that there need to be captions: Wikipedia:Captions#Clear_identification_of_the_subject, Wikipedia:Captions#Establishing_relevance_to_the_article, Wikipedia:Captions#Providing_context_for_the_picture.--In1984 02:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


The new captions are horrible. The point of using a caption is to say "we're showing you what the logo looks like, not claiming their endorsement" but the caption that was used just sticks a disclaimer under it, violating WP:ASR and every rule of caption writing on wikipedia that says to be descriptive.Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No objection. As to formatting, it appears that removing the "center", "right", etc. from the Image line takes care of the problem with the caption having an entire line between it and the image.--In1984 03:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I was just trying to add a caption; I wasn't thinking about the wording. You don't have to go out of your way to denounce it as horrible. I agree that your version is much better. nadav (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I hardly see a consensus for this issue to add captions to all logo's on Wikipedia. After reading through past discussions there are only 3 or 4 Wikipedians proposing captions. This is not a minor change and this will affect the majority of articles on Wikipedia. I therefore suggest a longer timeframe for discussion, with more participants, at a more visible location. Please do not implement any changes without first gaining a large consensus, as this is an issue that will require more than a week of discussion. Please keep in mind that alt tags have been in use for years that are providing the same information. Stickeylabel 06:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
People, this is not how things are done. Those attempting to implement this "caption" should cease as per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:POINT. Your changes are disputed, you should of proposed this at the pump, etc. I personally think it's silly and needless. Matthew 06:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I apologize. I did not realize this was controversial, and will support any consensus-building efforts. Personally, I support captioning logos to lessen the chance of trademark fair-use violations, namely the potential that companies are somehow associated with wikipedia in some way. Since our copyright fair-use policy is quite strict for the many legal reasons, it seems natural to be cautious about trademarks too. nadav (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC) I've listed this proposal at the village pump policy page nadav (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I would support this as "captions for all logos not in an infobox", but captioning a logo that is already in an infobox with anything more than the company name simply disrupts the formatting with no benefit. Besides, the infobox provides both the proposed frame and gives the image descriptive context already. --tjstrf talk 07:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that all trademarked logos in infoboxes on wikipedia are there under WP:FU, and that captions of logos are already available via alt tags. Any trademarked logo that violates fair-use should be immediatley removed, however any logos that comply with fair-use should be added and retained in infoboxes without the need for captioning. This proposition is redundant, and serves no practical purpose that is not already in use. Stickeylabel 07:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:NONFREE is unrelated, since it concerns the allowed usage copyrighted material (which is the normal meaning of the phrase "fair use"). The issue with trademarks is preventing the semblance of endorsement by or any connection with the company. nadav (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflicted) As a new page patroller and WP:COIN observer, I constantly see people putting up promotional company pages that often use the infobox template. These pages could easily appear to indicate that Wikipedia is somehow associated with, endorses, or is endorsed by, these companies. People put up pages without thinking about how they appear to someone who doesn't know better, and we should be very careful that templates don't help promote this false association for the legal reasons involved. nadav (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
There's no need for captions, the logos speak for themselves. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 08:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
This short comment doesn't address the issues I raised. Can you expand it please? nadav (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
What I mean is that the whole point the logo is there is to describe the company and its identity, writing captions is just doubling up. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 08:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to add some subheaders to address specific issues raised for and against using captions on all logos. This is to avoid wandering and rambling responses and to deal with each issue specifically, then each can be either crossed off, accepted, or left open accordingly.


Promotional association

I agree with Nadav that the main reason to caption all logos is to avoid being confused with promotional material. Nadav takes a legal view of it. My view is that it conflicts WP:NPOV. Advertisements and other promotions never identify logos as logos or slogans as slogans. That's to the company's advantage. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not an advertisement. See above for links to specific parts of NPOV policy.--In1984 08:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that all visiters to Wikipedia clearly understand that it is a Free Encyclopedia, through various information including the subheading From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Also, if an article is written in a promotional way we should target that issue, not this. Wikipedia readers do understand that this is a non-profit encyclopia, and is not a promotional website or an advertisement, through the reasons mentioned prior. Stickeylabel 08:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
All the more reason to make sure that promotional devices per NPOV:tone do not sneak in. If readers assume no promotions, they are that much more susceptible to being influenced when there is in fact promotion. Non-profit carries considerable weight with it and the companies/products described should not be able to abuse it.--In1984 08:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) This doesn't address the problem that people could still think assume the project somehow endorses or is endorsed by the subjects of the article. If you are unfamiliar with wikipedia and just click on a google link and then arrive at a page with a big infobox, prominent logo, and little explanatory text, then you would have good reason to assume it's affiliated with the company. Adding a caption to the template is a minimal change that will help alleviate this potential source of legal problems for Wikipedia. nadav (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I would disagree with this assessment: a few days ago a well-meaning but misguided person attempted to tag a number of logos for deletion because they were unfree & possible copyright/trademark infringements. (And that was what the notice on WP:AN/I stated this conversation was about.) We need to flag these logos as trademarked or copyrighted by their respective corporations or organizations with some kind of legal incantation (e.g., "Use of this logo is meant only for identification and not meant to infringe on the rights of its owner"). And we need to decide if this will be done in the article they appear in (either visibly, say in the caption, or in the markup code), as part of the text of the image page, or as a line on the "upload file" or edit page. Unfortunately, this is the only place where even part of this discussion is underway. -- llywrch 15:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Logos are already adequately marked as trademarked in their respective image pages (see Image:NBC logo.svg). I do not see a need for captions in infoboxes, as there is already adequate information for visiters to Wikipedia that clearly allows them to understand that we are not a promotional website. And all logos should contain clear information through their alt-text, their image pages, and the heading at the top of templates. I therefore do not see a need, or a concensus, that states otherwise. Stickeylabel 22:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I oppose captioning logos. I understand the argument that we need to make it clear the article is not an endorsement, but I think captioning the logo is unnecessary, and doesn't serve that purpose. First, the fact that this is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is already shown twice to users (in text and logo format). Second, to a new user, seeing text stating that the above picture is a logo, would seem redundant, and would not in any way make me understand the NPOV of the article. Couldn't you say the same thing about providing a link to the company website under External Links? Is that an endorsement? Of course not. And with logos how far would you go? Why not caption Corporate Logo. Not an endorsement? The real heart of the issue should be the tone of the article itself. If it reads like an advertisement, that's a problem and should be tagged/fixed. That has 100x more impact on a new users' perception of the advertising/NPOV problem. --Bill.matthews 01:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The fact that it says "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" is exactly the reason people could mistakenly believe there is a connection between Wikipedia and these companies. About external links: You are exactly right. That is the reason why companies often explicitly mark links as external to prevent the problem, and we of course do the same through the use of a special icon for them and through placing them in an "external links" section. I don't understand your slippery slope argument. About NPOV: yes that is an important problem which we already address, but it is not inherently related to trademark problems. Moreover, this is such a miniscule change that even if it helps with the legal issues just a little, it is still worth it. nadav (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, please do some research to back up your claims. Please do not make unsubstantiated claims that say: people do not understand wikipedia is a free non-profit encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a strong international brand that is used frequently in the media and on television shows. Also, the use of captions will not solve the issues you present. Your proposal will not bombard the free encyclopedia motto anymore than it already is. If you believe the subheading of article name's that state From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia has an adverse effect by affiliating wikipedia with a commercial organisation, please correct that issue. There has been no precedent to warrant any changes, and there have been no complaints for trademark violations with regards to the lack of captioning. It can therefore be seen that the introduction of logo captions is redundant and unnessassary, and the only purpose it will provide is to lengthen the already long infoboxes on the majority of articles at wikipedia. Stickeylabel 09:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
You are making assumptions. From an article cited in a recent Signpost:

Like many "great" ideas, however, this one too fell apart immediately upon contact with the real world. I had naively assumed that my students would be aware of Wikipedia's existence, if not well-informed about its pitfalls. But a survey of the class at our first meeting revealed that only 7 of the 28 students present knew what Wikipedia was, and even these seven offered varied responses to my questions (one student memorably called it a "liberal informative encyclopedia on the internet"; another opined that it was "not fully true"). Faced with this shocking lack of exposure, I knew I had to modify my brilliant assignment plan.

[3] nadav (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
But what use is a survey of only 28 students? Students account only a certain percentage of the Wikipedia readership and from this control group, it seems too small to make conclusions, especially since it is from one class in one location. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 11:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I would expect a sample of college students to favor knowledge of Wikipedia. However, I will concede this was nonscientific, but it does show no reason to expect people will already know how Wikipedia works and that it's non-profit. nadav (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree Trisreed, a survey out of 28 students hardly constitutes any conclusions towards the worlds knowledge of the existance of wikipedia. I do understand the reasoning for this proposition, however I do not agree with the methods proposed. Again, there have been no precedents to warrant any changes, and there have been no complaints for trademark violations on wikipedia with regards to the lack of captioning. I suggest that instead of consuming the time and efforts of individuals in this discussion, we should all target the real issues behind this proposition, i.e. spam, looking for articles that are not written in a formal tone, as well as violations of fair-use, copyright and trademarks. Stickeylabel 11:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Fine. I'll see what other people have to say, but I'll attend to other stuff now. nadav (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I also agree Trisreed. I think those are the important issues, not logo captions. But to use that student example, if you took a sample of people and showed them an article like PepsiCo, with and without the logo captioned, I doubt they would have different perceptions of the article's purpose, POV, etc. --Bill.matthews 14:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The general idea here is instead of having a giant logo branding the page, we have small logo cordoned off with explanatory text to make clear that it is an object to study and not there for the sake of it. It's the same reason we put block quotes in smaller font and indentation: so the reader doesn't take them at face value and doesn't confuse them with the article itself. nadav (talk) 08:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Navdav1's test is more significant than the assumptions in the rebuttal, which have no test data to support them. Yes, the sample is relatively small, but it is larger than the cumulative test sample of the 3 that replied. It is also worth noting that those were college students, whereas Wikipedia is being provided to far less informed elementary, middle, and high school students: "non-commercial" schools DVD (which includes, at a minimum, Sony, Microsoft, Royal Dutch Shell, and British Petroleum - minus the logo images "because of licensing restrictions").--In1984 08:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

TV results for fake news indicate companies are eager to put the appearance of news or knowledge on what is in fact advertising. More, not less, labeling and notifications have been recommended: PR watch report on fake news. Do we need to further encourage companies to pay editors to abuse WP's encyclopedic presence the way they have with paid bloggers[4] [5] [6] [7] [8]?--In1984 08:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Alt-Text already exists

Actually, it only does half the time at best, both in and out of infoboxes, and it is invisible unless the logo is specifically hovered over. Nor can one click on a logo link to understand what the point of the logo is. So alt-text is not a reliable or educational reason to refuse captions, nor is it controllable. Set captions in infobox templates provide a consistent caption across all like companies/products. No company can gain advantage by adjusting their normally invisible alt-text by loading it with key words and spam links.--In1984 08:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Alt text is reliable and has been common practise for years. Alt text is also controllable through the use of coding in the infobox template. If a company does spam articles, then that is the issue we must tackle. This is not a solution, as key words and spam will always be an issue for articles, regardless of captioning. I think our time would be better spent cracking down on spam, as apposed to this untargeted and redundant solution. Also images do have summaries of which contain information for their usage, and their copyright details. Stickeylabel 08:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Further expanding my above comment, I would agree with Stickeylabel as he sums up the issue in the Alt-Text manner. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 08:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Assuming for the sake of argument that spam/bombing is going to exist anyway, alt-text is still not used consistently in the various logos and infoboxes. Some logos have none. Some do. Doing a quick review of the biggest companies showed no consistency in use.--In1984 08:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know alt-text is routinely used. Even if it is, then it is of course invisible and we cannot expect the user to hover his mouse over it or do whatever it is that makes it appear. nadav (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I have already proposed centralised alt-text, so that all logos within a certain infobox all contain a similar prefix. Also, why do we assume that viewers can scroll in an article, or if they can actually click links in an article, or if they can actually read English. We assume these facts, because one must be computer literate to be able to turn on a computer let alone access the internet. Your asssumptions seem to favor your argument whilst dismissing similar assumptions. Stickeylabel 09:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Why assume they need descriptors on the side for the other information? Why not assume they can hover over every word and location? The caption is nothing more than another descriptor, appearing under instead of at the side, although I would not object to a template designed to have "Company logo" appear to the side of the logo.--In1984 09:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As a follow-up test of the alt-text claim, I checked each company in the Don Jones Industrial Average - Template:Dow Jones Industrial Average companies. 18 of the 30 had alt-text. The companies are listed in the template and you can click and verify for yourself. In addition, Sony, a huge and well known company, and part of another relativley small list of companies Template:Japanese_Electronics_Industry, has no alt-text.--In1984 00:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Captions in infoboxes disrupt formatting

The "ugly" argument. No disruption actually occurs. It remains clear and readable, simply not as elegant and seemless. In addition, this is only true if the "thumb" approach is taken. Using templates, the caption can be added very smoothly without adding additional lines/boxes around the logo. Consider this example of Template:Infobox Television as used for Fox News Live. It uses a definable caption line within the infobox. Or this, WABC (AM), which uses the Template:Infobox Radio Station and defines the caption within the template. Neither added any additional boxes or disrupt the formatting any more than the (redundant) company name or the various descriptors that appear on the side for each item.--In1984 08:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes make logos obvious

If that were the case, why bother with any of the descriptors? All of it should be self evident. Remove owner, location, headquarters, Web site, everything. All of it is already made clear by the existance of the shaded box.--In1984 08:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Owner, Location, Headquarters, Website etc, explain actual information relating to the article. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to give out information. A logo has both alt-tags and summaries within the image page. This is common practise, and has never been an issue in the past. Your statements are highly redundant, and are like saying "Why don't we hyperlink every single word in an article to its respective wiktionary page?". Stickeylabel 08:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that argument is like claiming why not hyperlink every word. That is the equivalent of what suggesting that alt-text and an image link is enough. Why not include hidden text and a link for every word/phrase? Because a simple descriptor, for the logo like the other information, helps to quickly give out that information.--In1984 09:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Then why not caption every word in an article? Please do not make assumptions without factual basis to back them up. Stickeylabel 09:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why bother having a rule to caption them when not in infoboxes then? Logos only identify themselves if the reader is already aware that it is the logo. Is the encyclopedia to help inform the reader or here to just assume the reader already knows all? If the latter, why bother having an encyclopedia at all?--In1984 09:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop duplicating similar headings (i.e. Wikipedia talk:Logos#Infoboxes make logos obvious and Wikipedia talk:Logos#Logos speak for themselves) to compensate for a lack of factual substance. Logo's are already directly linked to their respective product or company with the heading placed above. Logos also have alt-text, as well as extensive summaries on their image page. Stickeylabel 09:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a separate argument posed above on this very page, that's why the separate heading. It mentioned nothing about infoboxes being the identifying factor. Alt-text does not automatically appear like other information descriptors do. Having a caption, like a descriptor, actually does speak for what the information is.--In1984 09:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternative template

I did an test alternative logo template at User:Soman/test-template. The idea would be that the template could added as {{test-template|name of organization}}, and the variable of 'name of organization' would appear in the template, identitying exactly which organization's logos is portrayed and that the article is only fair use in that specific article. Thus it would be possible to discovered non-fair use by bots. --Soman 19:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I recommend you seek the counsel of User:Betacommand, who has gained quite the reputation as the Wikipedia fair use enforcer for logos. Also, the best place for discussing new copyright tags is Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. nadav (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationales for logos

I'm searching for an example of a logo with a fair use rationale. The bot that shall not be named keeps on tagging logos, and well, what's the proper course of action?  Grue  08:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You can read through Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline for some general suggestions. Seraphimblade gives an example of a good rationale for the specific case of logos on the guideline's talkpage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadav1 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Educational logos

Is there a discussion or article anywhere that specifically addresses fair use of Public and/or private university school and athletics logos? It seems to me that the use would be more broad that than of a corporate logo, as the public school logos are created by state or federal entities. --Longman391 07:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Has it been answered somewhere? --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

User insists that logo is in public domain

I changed Image:SNES logo.svg from a public domain license to a non-free logo license. As soon as I did so, the user reverted the edit and put it back in public domain, and insisted that it is in public domain. I don't want to start and edit war here, so wanted to resolve the dispute otherwise. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I addressed the concern at [9]. The creator of the SVG image may have some rights to the image, but I am reasonably certain that he doesn't. nadav (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Question about logos and userboxes

I know that we can't use non-free images (including logos) in userboxes, but I've got a nitpicky loophole-type question. Currently, Image:Buj-logo.jpg cannot be used in the userbox for the martial art, but could an image of the kanji by themselves be used? Thanks! Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Perhaps, if they do not look too much like the logo. If you free-hand draw the kanji (so they are not pixel-by-pixel duplicates of the logo) that would help a lot. At the end of the day what matters is how similar the two are and whether there is a likelihood of confusion between the two. That is difficult to discuss ahead of time without having something to actually compare. Johntex\talk 01:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a big issue here on both Wikipedia and Commons, where users are confusing copyright versus trademark. This has been an issue with many logos, which cannot be copyrighted due to their simplicity, but are subject to trademark laws. For example, Image:Mbta-logo.svg cannot be copyrighted because it merely consists of the letter "T" inside a circle. An editor has been confusing copyright with trademark, and has since added a copyright image tag (in addition to the public domain tag), and now the image is listed for deletion. I don't want to start an edit war over this, or any other image, but it is certain that editors need to establish the difference between copyright and trademark, and know when to use {{Trademark}} and {{PD-ineligible}} on image pages. There is no detailed explanation about this at WP:LOGOS, and I think that a statement should be instated somewhere. I also think that a {{PD-logo}} should be created to help users understand this concept a little bit better. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

{{PD-textlogo}} should be created instead, to (1) match the Commons name, and (2) to place this notice about the copyright and trademark difference. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 21:35, 19 November 2007 (GMT)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Logos/Archive_3&oldid=1142249419"