Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Logos/Archive 4

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

Logos in music

There is currently a discussion at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist#Logos on the use of graphic logos of musicians and bands, more specifically in the respective infoboxes, but also within articles in general. Among other things, the threshold for inclusion has been debated and given that this guideline largely applies, some additional input would be welcome. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

MonoBook Skin

I was surfing through Wikipedia on different languages, and I noticed that the French Wikipedia's logo in the upper left corner was anti-aliased. The crappy aliased white outline around the logo in the corner on the English version has always bothered me and I was wondering how/if it could be changed. Tkgd2007 (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You want to ask at Image talk:Wiki.png. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Modifying logos for display?

It seems like common sense to me that if a digital version of a logo is available, that should always be used without modifications. By this I don't mean it might not be appropriate to crop it, or maybe add annotations, etc., but it should surely not be visually changed in any way. But that seems not to be mentioned here, except for resizing. For a concrete example, I just reverted User:SmileyBarry's modification of the logo on Portal (game), in which he removed the background from the image, removed the "TM", and vectorized it. I don't think I'm alone in seeing this as incorrect, but this page doesn't seem to say anything either way.

Actually, I would think it would be sensible to never vectorize logos either, unless they're extremely simple and the resulting logo appears visually identical to the original ― in that if you flip back and forth between the two images in your browser in the same place on the screen, you'll notice no difference. This could happen for logos that consist only of very simple figures in solid colors. But anything that involves, for instance, a custom font or any reasonably complicated shape will change if you vectorize it, for instance with curves changing their directions slightly and so on. It seems to me like anything presented as an official logo should be left exactly as the logo's owner distributes it. Otherwise we're misrepresenting it.

What are people's thoughts on this? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Just for the record, I took an existing vectorization and "cropped" the 16px text from it. It originally did not include "TM", however, I can add it in a second. And now for my reply. I think we should vectorize most logos to present them in the clearest way possible, take less bandwidth and less processing power. In addition, almost the entire world uses supported browsers, like Safari and Mozilla Firefox. I think we should continue to use them, and regarding your thought the original logo and vectorized image should be identical, Wikipedians are enforcing this as previously, a vectorized Steam logo currently existing in the German Wikipedia, was suggested to replace the current logo. However, several hard-to-notice flaws have stopped this. And, I too think if the vectorized image is not completely identical it shouldn't be switched with the original, however, today's tools like InkScape, Adobe Illustrator and even VectorMagic allow precise vetorization with a loss of under 1%. In addition, complex fonts are not an issue with vectorized graphics, as everything is rendered through geometric shapes.
Hope this big reply is good enough!
Leaving aside the issue of the particular logo, which I'll respond to at Talk:Portal (video game):
  • Assuming logos are being displayed at a relatively low resolution in any case, which they are for fair use reasons, a vectorized image is usually not going to be clearer than a non-vectorized one. (JPEG artifacting, in particular, can probably be removed by just finding a PNG original; if one is not provided, again, it's not our business to make one.) It's true that this rationale breaks down for a hypothetical printed article, where a vectorized version would be an advantage, but such an article would require manual editing of the page to get the vector image to display instead of the rasterized version anyway.
  • There is no issue of taking less bandwidth or processing power. It certainly makes no appreciable difference to the servers, and users receive the same image either way: a rasterized PNG.
  • It's just not true that almost the entire world uses supported browsers like Safari and Firefox; or if it is, it's irrelevant, because a very large percentage of the English Wikipedia's viewers do not, they use Internet Explorer. Even if that weren't the case, it makes no difference, because the SVGs are rasterized for display anyway, and in fact there's not even an option at present in MediaWiki to serve actual SVGs instead of rasterized versions (T5593).
Now, if the images actually are really and truly the same (to within ordinary perception) at the displayed resolution, I don't see any real advantage or disadvantage. But if that's the justification, IMO, a side-by-side comparison is warranted before the vector image is used, if it's perceived that there's any justification for using it.

Aside from the whole issue of vector images, things like removing backgrounds should definitely not be allowed. Backgrounds can be considered part of the logo in many cases, at least to some extent. In the case of the Portal logo, I only see it used officially on either a black background or a rough gray gradient ― I don't see it used on a white or light gray background, which is how it appeared in the article.

So at a minimum, I would suggest a provision like this:

If you must modify a logo for some reason, make sure your changes are unnoticeable if possible. Do not change the shape of the logo or remove any part of it (such as a trademark symbol), and if practical, do not adjust the color or background and do not attempt to make it clearer or prettier than the original image. If the only available official version of a logo was distributed in non-digital form, some modification may be necessary to get it to display as intended on the web, and similarly, if the logo was only distributed in digital form, some modification may be necessary for the image to be print-ready. However, the web display of logos taken from (for instance) the trademark holder's website are exactly as the logo is intended to appear on the web, and this should be respected for display in web articles.

Which is probably too verbose, and possibly too vague or otherwise flawed. What do you think? (Especially if there are any third parties here.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Since this page seems unlikely to get many more people commenting aside from the two of us, I've posted notices requesting comment at two other copyright-related pages that get at least a few posts a day, Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. This isn't an exclusively copyright-related issue, but copyright/trademark are the most relevant in terms of my policy concerns. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Vectorizing has long been accepted as the best way to deal with logos that can readily be vectorized. The TM and circle-R are trademark notices are not mandatory to use from a trademark point of view, and they're not part of the logo (even if they are part of the graphics file), so I see no reason to require they be used. From context, it's clear that when we reproduce a logo it's a trademark belonging to the organization in question. Actual changes to the color, design, shape, etc., of the logo are improper because they don't fairly represent the logo so it's a misrepresentation, as well as unencyclopedic. It's a good question whether one should remove the tag-line text from a logo. The guideline suggests in most cases finding a version without the text. However, there are some logos that a company always uses with the text (which is subject to a separate trademark, but arguably not part of the copyright and certainly not copyrightable on its own), never by themselves. I would look around on the web. If the text always accompanies the logo, that's a good sign the company considers it part of their branding. If one finds the logo standing on its own in an official use of the logo, that's a sign that the text is dispensable. Wikidemo (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What should be done in the event of a logo that appears in different places with different colorings? Pick whichever one looks best in the article, or try to use one that's most commonly used by the company in the context of things like websites? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Modifications should be avoided, simply because trademark law is designed (among other things) to ensure integrity of the logo. It's obviously fine to use existing vector versions (including EPS), but we should avoid converting a raster to a vector, unless they appear identical. Superm401 - Talk 07:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

US government logos

The last section of this article states: "Specific US 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." Does this mean that it is illegal to use logos such as Image:US-NationalParkService-ShadedLogo.svg on Wikipedia without permission, regardless of the rules that apply to non-governmental logos? And is it appropriate to AFD government logo images that don't document such permission? Ipoellet (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


can i use that anywhere here? im sure wiki wouldnt sue itself for copyviolations...would it?♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

svg logos

hello, i want to ask a few things.

i wanted to upload vector version of logo of DC Comics, because I find it more useful. Then I realised, it is fair use and so it should not be SVG.

However, there is this crazy template {{SVG|fairuse}} - I don't get it much! For example in this logo - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:English_Pokemon_logo.png - there is clearly written, that wikipedia WANTS logos in SVG ... I don't know, it looks like WP is contradicting itself... --Have a nice day. Running 23:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have uploaded the vector version of DC Comics logo, but I am really not sure about fair use.... i think WP should have clear guidelines if YES vector logos or NO vector logos. All I can find out are endless discussions, as the one on this page. --Have a nice day. Running 11:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There have been horribly protracted discussions about SVG logos, and in the end it was decided that they were permitted within certain guidelines. {{SVG|fairuse}} was created to stop fair-use images appearing in the main {{SVG}} category gallery (which is not fair use, and gets in the way for conversion efforts for free images) even before it was firmly decided that SVG logos were allowed. HOWEVER, just because Image:English Pokemon logo.png has the {{SVG|fairuse}} tag on it, it doesn't mean that "Wikipedia wants logos in SVG", just that someone who saw that image wanted the logo in SVG. Stannered (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
AFAIK, the discussion mentioned is mainly at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 31#SVG Logos and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 40#SVG logos.2C again. I think some mention of this should be made in the article itself, as the topic seems to come up fairly often. (And the bar seems to have been set fairly low already with the section about band logos...) --Wulf (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't {{PD-textlogo}} listed on this page? MBisanz talk 03:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably because that template was created long after this page was written, and no one's got around to adding anything about it yet. Stannered (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Why does this page exist?

This is a serious question. Why does this page exist? The existence of this page seems (to me) to have given at least one user the belief that logos should be treated differently to other non-free media. From reviewing our policies and goals, I see absolutely no reason why they should. So why do we have this page? At the very least, I feel this advice/these guidelines should put more stress on the fact that logos are non-free images, and should be treated as such in every way. J Milburn (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There was, at one point, significant disagreement over whether to use logos in articles at all. This page exists to say "yes, we do use logos in articles for identification purposes, and yes, this is considered a valid NFCC justification". --erachima talk 00:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Then why all this fluff? Why not simply direct people to a more general discussion of non-free media once the page establishes that logos in general can be used? J Milburn (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Somebody wanted to make it look nice and the logo template needs somewhere to point? I don't know. --erachima talk 02:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, as I see it, this page is extremely damaging. It has a load of rather poor/irrelevent advice, it's rather one sided, and gives people the impression that logos should be treated differently to other non-free images. I feel this should be marked only as an essay, or even deleted/tagged as historical. I am going to bring this up on the village pump in an attempt to attract more people to the discussion. J Milburn (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'd have to respectfully oppose that idea. While this page may need updating to include things like {{PD-textlogo}}, logos do make up 25% of our non-free images and are treated differently in that they may be uncopyrightable, but still not free (if their trademarked). Which parts of it give poor advice? MBisanz talk 13:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with User:MBisanz. They are different because they are always not-free and can never be replaced by a free alternative, so this page explains the policy specfically on logos. Epson291 (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
They aren't always non-free- some are PD due to the simplicity, or the age. In any case, any non-free image must be irreplaceable, otherwise we delete it. We should not treat logos any differently from other non-free images and, as I see it, this page advocates that. J Milburn (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Logos should be treated differently. There is a distinct difference between copyrights (other non-free material) and trademarks (such as logos). The language of the guideline may need attention, but the distinction made is certainly valid. Vassyana (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Then this page should be specifically about trademarks, and lose all the misleading information about copyright- logos should be treated like other non-free images in that respect. I don't know anything about trademarks, but as it is a legal matter, have we any word from the Foundation on what to do about them? J Milburn (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"All fair-use restrictions apply, but..."

{{SVG-Trademark}} states that "in particular this image should not be rendered any larger than is required for the purposes of identification and/or critical commentary". What is the point of this? No article should have ridiculously large images in anyway, particularly not logos that are only there for identification purposes. And rendering them in higher resolution hardly helps people steal them, since they can simply go to the image page, download the SVG and render at ∞dpi.

Possible proposals:

  1. Forbid downloading of fairuse images. Not sure how that would be done technically, but at least it would make the "don't render at large sizes" clause make sense. Of course then you're relying on people not rendering the image at 10,000px. So presumably the same software restriction would also then need to stop such images from being rendered at wider than, say, 500px.
  2. Introduce random "jitter" in all outlines in all fairuse uploaded SVGs. This would mean that whilst the image could be rendered without distortion at any resolution up to the maximum allowed, above this the jagged edges and jitters could be seen meaning that it couldn't be abused to create a faithful reproduction of the original logo.

Any thoughts? Stannered (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Is a photo on a logo a free alternative?

The use of a SVG logo at the article on Comic-Con International is being questioned. Some users argues that since there is a free alternative, a photo on the same logo (Image:Comic Con International.jpg), the SVG version of the logo should not be used, and should in fact be deleted according to the Wikipedia's non-free content guidelines (see the deletion discussion). I am not very familiar with US copyright laws and the practice of fair use. But it seems that most articles on Wikipedia features a jpg or svg logo at the top of an infobox in the article. And I also wonder if a close photograph of a logo can ever be a free alternative. I cannot find anything in this guideline that gives a clear answer to these questions. Someone who can help me out? --Kildor (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A photo of a logo is not a free alternative, in the same way that I could not come and photograph your photograph and claim that it is mine. J Milburn (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
A photo of a banner that has the logo is not a photo of just the logo. It's a photo of the banner. The banner is a thing in a setting, as opposed to a user-created image which shows nothing but the logo. You can take a photograph of the giant Coca-Cola sign in Time Square without violating copyright. The sign is not just the logo. A photo of the sign is not the same thing as a photo of a Coca-Cola billboard which is not the same thing as a Coca-Cola bottle. A photo of a billboard in Scranton would not be the same thing as a photo of a billboard in Honolulu. Each photo tells a story. A banner hanging from a ceiling reveals something people see of the environment when they attend the Comic-Con convention.
WP:LOGOS is clearly written with the understanding that free alternatives exist. Otherwise, it wouldn't say to avoid using a logo when such an alternative exists. Therefore, what is a free alternative as mentioned by the policy? Doczilla STOMP! 09:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly where in this policy can I find the text about "avoid using a logo when such an alternative exists"? Please take a look at the "Why does this page exists" above. --Kildor (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. I looked it up before I even joined that IfD (in which we've both said plenty and now really ought to stay out of so other people might weigh in), and now I can't find it. But why would any of you be discussing what a free alternative is if you haven't seen such policy or licensing warning yourselves? Doczilla STOMP! 09:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
You claimed that there was a free alternative, and I simply responded to that claim (and asking here for advice). You have probably read the Wikipedia:Non-free content before, which says that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". So, the question is still if there is a free equivalent to a logo. And the answer appears to be no according to the discussions above. --Kildor (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
A free alternative to a logo could be (for example) a picture of the product in the case of the company, or a picture of the band in the case of the band. A picture of the logo is not, by any stretch of the imagination, always needed. J Milburn (talk) 10:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand your reasoning, although it seems to be common practice to illustrate articles on companies and organizations with their logo. This guideline does not prevent the use of logos in this case, and the discussions above make us understand that logos should be treated differently. In the specific case of Comic-Con International, the proposed alternative to using the logo is to use a photo on the same logo: Image:Comic Con International.jpg, which isn't exactly a free alternative. --Kildor (talk) 10:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I contest that logos should be treated differently- just like any other non-free image, if we can get by without using them, they shouldn't be used. I admit logos are used on almost all company pages, but I would say that, in a lot of those cases, they were actually needed. On the other hand- if you take, for instance, band pages (especially heavy metal bands, which often use logos) a lot of the logos have been filtered off, as, in terms of identity, the logos are pretty irrelevant, and are mostly decoration. With a lot of corporations, the logo is what defines them; the main part of their corporate image. As for using this guideline to back up your arguments- I'd say ignore them. The only use of this page appears to be guidance for how to deal with trademark issues, but it has become a little too big for its boots and is now trying to override more important policies. J Milburn (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a policy document as well, but it probably needs some clarification. I do not know much about the Comic-Con International to tell if their logo is relevant enough, but I would say it is more or less the same case as with Coca Cola. Is it really necessary to illustrate the article with a logo? There are multiple photos on cans and bottles to be used instead. The Coca Cola logo is of course much more widespread than the one of Comic-Con, but if that is the only difference, this policy should be made clearer on what is required in order to present a logo. --Kildor (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This is exactly why this guideline (not policy) is so misleading. What this page says is irrelevant- people should not be judging whether logos are needed based on what is said here, but on what is said at WP:NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
There it is. Thank you, J Milburn. "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." And in this case, the encyclopedic purpose is either to show what the logo looks like or just decorate the article. That word "only" is pretty darn strong. Doczilla STOMP! 17:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly- it is strong, and decorating the article is not an 'encyclopedic purpose'. The logo should only be used when demonstrating what it looks like is key to the article- and, in most (not all) company pages, it is. J Milburn (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Changed to essay

This page has no right to be called a guideline. It is misleading at best, and, at worst, goes against WP:NFCC. Many users appear to be confused by this, believing that logos should be treated differently from other non-free images and so it needs to be made clear that this contains only advice and opinions- not something to refer to in order to allow you to include non-free images when they are blatantly not allowed. If you disagree with me, please explain why here. J Milburn (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have put a notification on the Village Pump about this change. I think it was perhaps a bit hasty to change the status to an essay, but let see what other people think. --Kildor (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted the downgrade for the time being, given that there is no strong consensus to mandate such a change. Quite the opposite actually, given a fairly recent discussion on the subject, in which virtually no one was compelled to agree with J Milburn and editors such as MBisanz and Vassyana outright opposing him. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not some people opposed my (tongue in cheek) suggestion that the page should be deleted, no one has yet explained why logos should be treated any differently from other non-free images. In terms of project-wide consensus, WP:NFCC holds more consensus than this, meaning that this (which tells us that some non-free images should be treated differently) has no right to be treated as a guideline. J Milburn (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I see two unique circumstances with logos that do not occur with other non-free images. First, and it might be splitting hairs, is that there never is a free version of a non-free logo. It is either non-free, and all versions of the logo are non-free, or it is in the public domain, and all versions of the logo are in the public domain. Second, logos change from time to time, and use of a historical logo doesn't jeopardize the owner's potential to profit from it. Other than that - essay or guideline - there's not a lot of difference. Although a guideline is thought to carry more weight, in both cases, there are acceptable exceptions, and common sense is the ultimate guideline. dhett (talk • contribs) 05:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
There should never be a free version of any non-free image that we use, and, again, a lot of non-free images can change- album covers, currency, postage stamps, flags, etc. I don't see why either of them separates logos. I agree with the other thing that you are saying- however, my bone with this 'guideline' is that a lot of people are coming here, reading this and believing that logos should be treated differently. I doubt that that is due to a failure to apply common sense on their part, and I personally believe that it is because this guideline is misleading. J Milburn (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
There are free versions of general non-free images. If I lift a photo, let's say, of one of the presidential candidates, from a publication, that's a non-free image. If I am fortunate enough to take a photo of that same candidate, and I post it to Wikimedia in the public domain, then that's a free version. It's not the same image, per se, but it is the same subject. That can never happen with a logo. Either every version of the logo is free, or it's non-free, which is the case where a logo's copyright has expired, or it was pre-1978 without an accompanying copyright notice, or it is a text-based logo. dhett (talk • contribs) 04:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand how WP:LOGO can condone the use of SVGs at all, "For SVG formats, versions of the logo that contain significantly more detail than is necessary to display at the desired (low) resolution should be avoided." WP:NFCC #3b demands low resolution, while SVGs are infinitely scalable. indopug (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Not all logos fall under WP:NFCC. Text-based logos are an example; they cannot be copyrighted. dhett (talk • contribs) 04:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If they are ineligible for copyright (I assume that means they are free) then what is the problem with showing logos that "contain significantly more detail than is necessary to display at the desired (low) resolution"? indopug (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
None at all. J Milburn (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Bold and Stupid

I am going to be bold and stupid. I am not going to read through eight years of discussion before posting the following so if this has been said before maybe that says that this idea has self-generating purpose and value...

I believe logos should always (unless legally challenged by trademark owners) be included on the main article page for the subject that the logo identifies. This is because it adds information to the mind of the reader. If I read about the Jaycees and then while driving into a town I see a sign with a Jaycee logo I can immediately know what that sign represents.

Consider it this way... If you go into any small ethnic urban community (china-town, little-korea, little-moscow, etc) found in most major cities you will not be able to read much of the signage unless you know that language. But a picture of a pipe will tell you where to buy tobaco products and a picture of a bowl with chopsticks will help you find a place to eat.

Companies and organizations create logos because they want their products/services to be easily recognized. Wikipedians create articles because they want knowledge to be expanded. Adding a logo to an article is adding a easy visual recognition to knowledge.

My two cents. -- Low Sea (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If the logos are so important, then it will be easy for them to meet WP:NFCC, and, if they aren't that important, then your argument is void. Either way, a separate policy is not needed for logos. J Milburn (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Under WP:NFCC criteria #8 says: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

Obviously I feel the ability to connect written facts with a recognizable symbol that summarizes all of those facts "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" in the real world. Knowledge and understanding extend far beyond the pages of an encyclopedia.

As to the other part of that criteria, "and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", let me have you answer that...

  • SCENARIO: You are a non-denominational Christian who just moved into in a new town and are looking for a place of worship. Driving around you see a beautiful church building with this logo[1] out front. You notice the cross and the crown, both familiar Christian icons, but you cannot see a sign with a name. You can just go in there and ask what denomination they are. What could it hurt?
I dont know why it has changed but to see the picture at the above link you have to click on the URL highlighted in ugly orange. It is the same URL (http://nspv.narod.ru/ariyskaya_natsiya.jpg) as the link above but for some odd reason it won't let you go directly to it anymore. -- Low Sea (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Would knowing what that logo represents be helpful? Would not knowing be detrimental? -- Low Sea (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure, in the majority of cases, logos will be greatly helpful- and they will meet our NFCC, meaning this guideline is not needed. However, in those cases where logos don't add a great amount to the article (in a lot of cases with band articles, where the band's dress, the music, the music videos, the album covers and even the instruments sometimes come before in terms of identifying the band, for instance) it is silly to feel the images are needed, just because they are logos. Instead, logos should be treated just like any other non-free image- added if absolutely needed, removed if not. J Milburn (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Are photos with one prominent logo or trademark derivative works?

I would like to take (and upload) some photos of shopfronts and aggregations of literature with trademarked letterheads, to demonstrate the identity of businesses, and the use of their logo. Are these in general derivative works, or do we need to look at them on a case by case basis? Examples from another user are this shopfront, Image:Melk branch 1.jpg, and the balloon on the right. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In the case of the example the image is problematical yes. Generally we work on the basis that if something is not the focus of the image it is generally not a problem. If it is the focus of the image then yes there is a problem.Geni 19:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of sentence re SVG logos

Has there been any consensus established with regards the removal of the sentence "for SVG formats, versions of the logo that contain significantly more detail than is necessary to display at the desired (low) resolution should be avoided", thereby eliminating any reference to SVG on Wikipedia:Logos? I was under the impression that there was no consensus regarding the use of non-free vector images. Gr1st (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just replaced it, having not seen this section first. This is definitely something that needs to be discussed before it's removed, as it's been in place for quite some time now. TalkIslander 21:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
If you are limiting detail you might as well use raster.Geni 23:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, but if you're paying reasonable diligence to ensure that the logo is accurate and has a high-quality appearence, you might as well use svg. Like I said, please discuss before reverting against consensus. TalkIslander 00:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Might as well use SVG isn't good enough given the downsides and raster can do everything you describe without the downside.Geni 00:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User Page and logos

Conserning this sentences;

  1. It is not necessary to seek formal permission from the owner in advance of using their logo, so long as the usage is fair use, does not create any impression that the logo is associated with or endorses Wikipedia or the article it appears in, and does not create any reasonable grounds for complaint by the owner. The purpose of the specific guidelines above is to meet these conditions.
  2. In the event that the owner objects to the use made of a logo, the suggested action is for the owner to remove the logo themselves, and identify themselves and their reasons for removing it on the associated talk page.

Has there been any consensus established with regards of using logos in user pages. For example, is it possible to use this logo [2] in my user page?

--ZentukBir Papyrus 23:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, as that logo is non-free. Non-free media may not be used outside of the mainspace. J Milburn (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

After seeing attempts to use this page to justify abuses of the non-free content criteria on several occasions but hearing coherent arguments that this page is justified in existing, I have completely rewritten it in my userspace, and I am looking for consensus on whether to replace the current version with my version. I have split the issues raised on the current guideline page into three main issues concerning logo use- copyright, trademark and editorial concerns. I have left the trademark section intact, as I know nothing about it, but I have stressed the importance of the guidelines on non-free content and specifically the non-free content criteria. Comments here are welcome, and note that you are free to edit my draft. I am going to advertise this on various boards around the project. J Milburn (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that your draft adds "there should be a good reason for the use of the historical logo (whether the current logo is used or not) explained in the historical logo's fair use rationale"
Is it off-topic for the rewrite to discuss whether the boilerplate text in {{logo fur}} is an adequate "good reason" for historical logos, or would always need a handwritten reason as well? I personally think that a gallery of well-known historical logos for a brand clearly satsify the criteria, but others disagree. (One example is TV station idents)
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether I agree- I think that is something that is going to need to be discussed in-depth, and it should be based on what is said in the more general policies and guidelines, rather than here. I think we can all agree that we should be careful about the rationale of allowing such images- I just wanted to help clarify that the 'this is a logo, therefore it is allowed in articles' philosophy just isn't the way we should be thinking. I don't think specific policy on how much historical logos are 'allowed' is something we could just slip into a rewrite. J Milburn (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I am looking for more thoughts on this before I move my version in. Does anyone believe the current version is better? Does anyone believe my version is better? Does anyone think it makes much of a difference? I would like to take silence as consensus but I realise that, in practice, unilaterally rewriting a guideline probably wouldn't go down well. J Milburn (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind to elaborate on aforementioned "abuses" and point out where and how your draft fixes them? I'm sure that would help a lot of people to evaluate its merits. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The abuses were people trying to use this guideline to justify logos when they are absolutely not needed. For the most recent example I was involved in, see this thread. The user involved quite literally said that the NFC guidelines should be ignored in favour of this one, as the images in question (all 100-and-odd on one article) were logos. Basically, my draft fixes this by re-asserting the importance of the NFCC and NFC in regards to non-free logos, and reminds people that as well as treating non-free logos as logos, (and everything that comes with it) they have to be treated as non-free images. J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see the difference, except you moved things around. Do you intend to change the meaning of the guideline, or just the presentation of it? Also, we are replacing the phrase "fair use rationale" with "non-free use rationale". --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's hard to say whether I want to change the meaning, as it isn't easy to say what the meaning was before. I guess I have neatened it up a little, but the most important change is the reassertion of the non-free content guidelines. You're welcome to change 'fair use rationale' to 'non-free use rationale' if you prefer that. J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There's quite a lot of sensible advice that doesn't seem to appear in your new version. For example:

It is generally acceptable to use a logo in an article about what the logo represents (such as a company or organization), or in an article discussing the logo itself, the visual style of the creator of the logo, or of its history and evolution.
Reasonable diligence should be taken to ensure that the logo is accurate and has a high-quality appearance. Common sense says that a logo displayed prominently on the logo owner's own website should be OK to use, because it represents their wishes about how the logo is presented on computer screens at typical screen resolutions. Avoid resizing a logo—try to find one that is a suitable size. Do not use a resized logo if it doesn't look good.

Both of these points IMO (and probably others too) should continue to appear in any re-written version. Jheald (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The first point is trying to take the guideline too far. You're basically saying 'ignore the NFCC, this is a logo, so you can use it'. That's exactly the spirit I wanted to try and remove in my version. Sure, it will be generally acceptable, but as soon as that is written people will (and have) take it as a set-in-stone right for all articles to have at least one image of a logo. The second point was in my original draft, but was removed upon request from Geni. If you think it should be added back in, you're welcome to do it- I think it's pretty sound advice. J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Also note that any other advice I removed was general, not specific to logos- comments about burden of proof and copyright holder request for removal. That is content that belongs in the non-free content guideline, as it does not apply specifically to logos any more than any other content. J Milburn (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The first point I think is incredibly important. Logos used in this way do pass WP:NFCC. It should stay in. Jheald (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Telling people that a logo in the corresponding article automatically passes the NFCC is not only a bad precedent but is actually outright wrong. I am speaking here about band logos- the logo is often an incredibly minor element of the band, and its inclusion is absolutely not always covered by the NFCC- there have been a number of people who have spent a lot of time removing them after extensive discussion at FAC and WikiProject Metal. This is another abuse of this guideline I remember- someone said that they didn't care that the NFCC/consensus at corresponding WikiProjects/on FAC/on many article talk pages did not cover the use of the logo (effectively trivia) because WP:LOGO said they could. This is a perfect example of why I became so angry with this 'guideline' in the first place. J Milburn (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This guideline does not override the NFCC, but it should clarify how NFCC is interpreted for logos. An article about a company can (and should) contain the logo. Band articles should maybe not. That is just the kind of information that should be in this guideline. It is hard for a new user to figure out the consensus that has developed for when non-free logos can be used, so this guideline should describe the consensus. A guideline should be useful for anyone unsure about if and how to use a logo. It should be as practical and directly applicable as possible. Just referring back to NFCC does not help much. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely, 100% disagree. What in hell is the point of having a guideline that "does not override the NFCC", but does tell people how they should interpret it? If an image meets the NFCC, it can be used. If it does not, it can not. Why have a second guideline telling people when images meet the NFCC? That defeats the point of the NFCC and, in practice, does override it. J Milburn (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Because NFCC is (intentionally) ambiguous. It it broad enough to cover everything, but actually applying it to specific cases is difficult. Which images "significantly increase readers' understanding" is a matter of discussion and consensus forming. Since there are many similar cases, we need good guidelines to help editors. You encountered somebody who claimed this guideline allowed some images while NFCC didn't, but did the guideline actually say so? --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Images should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Any attempt to say "X image is always considered fair on X article" is going to create problems, as people say "I don't care what the NFCC criteria says, Guideline Y said I could". This page should be here to help people write decent rationales and understand the restrictions on logo uses so that they can judge whether images should be used, (which, I admit, mine isn't yet- I'm trying to fix a problem, and the page can then be written up to be extremely useful over time) not a reassurance that certain images can be used in certain articles. The NFCC is deliberately vague, and so this should be, otherwise it actually starts to supersede the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The point is, though, that per WP:NFCC it is generally acceptable to use a logo in an article about what the logo represents (such as a company or organization), or in an article discussing the logo itself, the visual style of the creator of the logo, or of its history and evolution. Jheald (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
No, it isn't, because it isn't generally accepted on band pages. If carefully worded, I would not be opposed to a notice about what the common practice is, but it would have to be written in such a way to not suggest logos are somehow more usable than other non-free images, and to say that the burden of proof still lies with the person who wishes to include the logo. J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I have added the following line to the start of the section on uploading non-free logos- "It is generally accepted that company logos may appear in the infobox of articles on commercial companies, but note that, if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets our non-free content criteria.". Is this a comfortable compromise? Is this what you wanted to add? J Milburn (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I would include the whole text as before. But if you then want to add a cut-out about bands, explaining why they are an exception to the general line, thus clarifying that the word "generally" does have some limitations, that might work.
In general, I think if you want to cut this line, you're going to need to show you have consensus. For what it's worth, you don't have my !vote. Jheald (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The NFCC has consensus, and I don't think you're going to win fighting against that. Why is the original line better than the one I have added? J Milburn (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Rereading the line, I am still not seeing why that belongs here. You're quite literally saying "nevermind what NFCC says, whoever wrote this page (and look, it's a guideline about logos) says that you can use a logo here." That's absolutely exactly what this page should not be about. This should be a page providing things that people should consider when using logos, not a list of occasions when they can be used. J Milburn (talk) 11:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec) As Apoc says above, WP:NFCC sets out the broad general principles, and nobody is questioning it. This guideline sets out the long-established consensus interpretation of those principles mean applied in the context of logos. And the long-established consensus interpretation of WP:NFCC is that it is generally acceptable to use a logo in an article about what the logo represents (such as a company or organization), or in an article discussing the logo itself, the visual style of the creator of the logo, or of its history and evolution. Jheald (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, as I would like to get this draft implemented at some point, I have changed the opening line of the section to "It is generally considered acceptable to use a logo in an article about what the logo represents (such as a company or organization), or in an article discussing the logo itself, the visual style of the creator of the logo, or of its history and evolution but, if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets our non-free content criteria." I will add a section on band logos in 'specific cases' in a second. Do you feel this reflects the consensus that exists? J Milburn (talk) 11:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And the section on band logos has been implemented. Do you have any further objections to my draft? Which do you prefer, and why? J Milburn (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I haven't looked at it exhaustively. It's a very big change, and I think you should allow several more days for more editors to come and eyeball it. There seems still to be a lot from the current guideline that hasn't been included -- the point above about logos being presented at sufficiently high resolution to be "accurate and of a high quality appearance" being just the tip of the iceberg. I think the opening points made in the current text are also valuable, emphasising the value for article identification and in portraying how those responsible for the logo wish to be seen -- in essence this is the NFCC #8 justification for showing logos, and is important to communicate. I think the attitude in the opening paragraph in the current guideline is also commendable, and seems to have been lost in your re-draft: namely that how their logos are portrayed is sensitive to companies, and we should therefore be careful when we use them to use them with sensitivity. I find this appeal to do what is right for the sake of doing what is right much more engaging that what seems a narrow emphasis on legal and policy obligations in your text.
Personally, I tend to be pretty conservative about re-writing policies, guidelines, laws etc. Text that has been around for a long time tends to have had the roughest edges knocked off, and to have built up a wealth of interpretation and continuity behind it. Wholesale re-writes tend to lose all of that accumulated understanding. My preference therefore is if it isn't broke, don't fix it. If it is broke, then prefer to make fixes small and localised and to the point. Sometimes extensive re-writes are made for style; ideally it's best if these are done separately from changes in content, so that a refactored guideline would still behave identically on any given test suite. But it seems to me you're proposing a wholescale re-write, and you're wanting to substantially re-shape the content. Given that trying to change one line in a guideline often triggers a fortnight of discussion, that seems bold to me. I'm not against change in principle, but it needs proper line-by-line scrutiny. I don't think the new text has had that on this case. I don't think you've even started to explain what you're trying to change and why. So, IMO any change at the moment would be considerably premature. There's no cause for rush; we should take our time and get it right. Jheald (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I do agree with that. I'm also pretty conservative in terms of guideline/policy change- I just find this to be (though not the most abused, by any means) the worst written guideline we have. I agree that careful analysis would be useful- perhaps doing that on the rewrite talk page would be more useful, or even just changing the guideline (then reverting and discussing if there's a disagreement, in the usual style). I disagree with your view on the lead, as I felt it introduced this guideline in completely the wrong way- note that many people will only read the first few lines, so it's important to get the main message across, and it's important that the main message we get across is not that logos are fine to use- it's that, as with any other protected content, we should be cautious about using them. Anyway- how about we move these discussions to the draft talk page, and keep this discussion for more general discussion of moving the rewrite in over the top of the current guideline? J Milburn (talk) 12:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Logos/Archive_4&oldid=1137417809"