Wikipedia talk:Logos/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Typographic logos

I wonder if it's worth flagging that copyright standards on "simple typographic logos" may not be so permissive outside the U.S.A.

For example, London's Westminster Council is actively claiming copyright on the design of its street-name signs ([1], comments [2], [3]), such as for example this sign (Carnaby Street) and this sign (Abbey Road).

Not a problem for Wikipedia, if our understanding of U.S. law is correct, but perhaps we should note that re-users elsewhere might need to be more careful. Jheald (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point- I agree it is worth a mention. It is already covered at WP:PD#FONT. J Milburn (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(Actually, for the record, the WP:PD#FONT reference is about copyright in the letterforms of a font, rather than copyright in a design using letters from a known font in a particular way). Jheald (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So where does that leave us with something like the New York Yankees' cap logo? It incorporates letterforms, but the defining feature of the logo is the way in which the letterforms are arranged. At what point does it cross the Threshold of originality and become a work of authorship? SixFourThree (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

Logos of bands

The proposed new text on logos of bands in JMilburn's draft seems a bit too negative to me. I agree that mostly, when bands use a different logo on each and every record sleeve, they are of minimal significance to the band. But where a particular logo has become strongly identified with a band -- for example because the band has used substantially the same logo on a majority of its releases or publicity, or for other reasons -- then it is surely something that a comprehensive article ought to include. A reasonable check might be whether a Google image search for "band-name logo" predominantly returns a particular design. On that test, I'm glad to see that Rolling Stones includes their characteristic "tongue and lip design"; but seems to me an incompleteness in the articles that The Beatles doesn't include the characteristic logotype with its extended "T", and that there's nothing about the characteristic logos of The Who, Iron Maiden, etc.

The stricture that "the logo itself must be discussed in the prose" may be reasonable enough in this case - after all, it's rare enough that bands do stick to a particular logo, so it's worth at least a prose caption comment that they have, plus when they started using it, who designed it, etc.

But when there is a relevant logo, it seems to me we should be encouraging people to write about it and include it; not dissuade them. Jheald (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree- if there are reliable sources discussing the logo, a comprehensive article would include a reference to it. I am not quite sure what your concern here is? J Milburn (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is even something where a secondary source is needed. Per WP:PSTS I would have thought a band's consistent use of a logo in its album covers, publicity, etc is its own reliable source. Jheald (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, not really. This isn't just my own interpretation of policies, but a fairly long standing consensus at FAC and HMM. Even if they use the logo a lot, it can still be pretty trivial- it's pretty obvious that corporate image (logos, slogans etc) is immensely important for a company, but that just isn't the case for musical bands. If the logo truly is significant, it will be mentioned in reliable sources (interviews, reviews etc). Do you honestly believe that such a significant part of a band will be left out of all sources? No, of course it wouldn't. Therefore, if the logo has never received a mention, it must be trivial, and the use of a non-free image to demonstrate something that isn't even worthy of being mentioned in the prose cannot stand. It isn't for us to decide what is important- we simply report what other sources are talking about. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Apply that same logic to corporations: if a corporate logo is not discussed qua logo in reliable sources, the image doesn't belong here. Gimmetrow 04:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there is an argument for that, but I do not feel I would like to challenge the overwhelming consensus that corporate logos do have a place. Plus I feel that corporate logos are relevant in a way that band logos aren't- the same way, for example, album covers are accepted in high quality articles on albums despite the fact the cover itself may not be discussed. J Milburn (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The Beatles' logo is notable enough that it was prominently featured in its designer's obit[4], even above his other contributions to British music. SixFourThree (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

Silence as consensus?

Can I assume that the lack of recent comments means that people are now happy with my alternative draft for this guideline? I'm requesting more eyes on it- if no more comments come in the next few days, I will make the switch. J Milburn (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Last chance? J Milburn (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Bands vs. corporations

I don't get it. Does NASDAQ's logo really matter? How is my understanding of NASDAQ improved by knowing what the logo looks like? And how is my understanding of Iron Maiden not equally improved by knowing what its logo looks like? Isn't it just least astonishment to have logos where people expect logos? Yes, most bands do not have a consistent logo, but that doesn't justify a blanket statement like "Even if they use the logo a lot, it can still be pretty trivial." Plenty of bands have logos that are at least as significant to the band's artistic identity as corporate logos, which are—more often than not—just simple wordmarks. Deleting band logos is pretty counterintuitive and I don't see how it benefits the encyclopedia. —Werson (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Plenty of bands have logos that are at least as significant to the band's artistic identity as corporate logos." Couldn't agree more. Any band with a significant logo should have it discussed in the text, and included. If it truly is significant, it will have been discussed by reliable sources, and so a few lines discussing it in the article will be very welcome. A logo for a corporation forms the main part of its image- if a corporation was to sell itself to you in a fraction of a second, it would show its logo. A band would show its music. The consensus that band logos should not be included unless the logo itself is discussed is a longstanding one both at FAC and at music WikiProjects. And removing said logos helps the encyclopedia in the same way that removing any non-free image does- if you do not believe that removing non-free images is beneficial, then perhaps this isn't the project for you. J Milburn (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Any band with a significant logo should have it discussed in the text, and included. If it truly is significant, it will have been discussed by reliable sources, and so a few lines discussing it in the article will be very welcome.

Oh, what a coincidence! I just read that exact guideline on WP:Logos and I went to the talk page to ask for someone to explain it to me. The only response was some guy repeating the guideline to me.

A logo for a corporation forms the main part of its image- if a corporation was to sell itself to you in a fraction of a second, it would show its logo.

No, it wouldn't. That's ridiculous. It would show its products. A band's product is music. It's all homologous. How does 3M's logo make me want to buy Scotch tape? It's a 3 and an M. It could be a square or a swirl or a picture of a man, and it wouldn't change the company's mission, history, or importance one bit. Why doesn't the 3M article have to discuss its logo?

The consensus that band logos should not be included unless the logo itself is discussed is a longstanding one both at FAC and at music WikiProjects.

Obviously a consensus since it's on the page. My question was what is the rationale? Consensus means there's a reason. Why is NASDAQ's logo more important to NASDAQ than Iron Maiden's is to Iron Maiden?

removing non-free images is beneficial

It's not beneficial by default, no. It's beneficial when the non-free image is not justified. Any justification for including a company logo should be adequate for band logos. (Band/company logos aren't necessarily non-free either, so that's kind of a strawman.)

then perhaps this isn't the project for you.

If you're going to be a condescending bitch, then maybe you should stay off talk pages. —Werson (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The rationale is simple- a band's logo just isn't as significant as a company's logo. Think about corporate image- corporate image is of very little interest to a band; their logos become purely decoration, serving no great purpose. A logo for a company appears on all correspondences and products. There is also a practical reason- in an infobox for a company, we have an image of the logo. In an infobox on a band, we have an image of said band. Where would a band logo be placed? As I have said, a truly significant logo will have been discussed, meaning that we can discuss it in the article. If the logo is discussed, an image would be useful. Note that this is a bit of a backwater guideline. Instead, reading the non-free content guidelines and non-free content criteria would be more beneficial. J Milburn (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting conversation.

"A logo for a corporation forms the main part of its image- if a corporation was to sell itself to you in a fraction of a second, it would show its logo."

"No, it wouldn't. That's ridiculous. It would show its products. A band's product is music. It's all homologous. How does 3M's logo make me want to buy Scotch tape? It's a 3 and an M. It could be a square or a swirl or a picture of a man, and it wouldn't change the company's mission, history, or importance one bit. Why doesn't the 3M article have to discuss its logo?"

Frankly, I don't think that either article should have to discuss the logo in order for it to be included. A band logo is created to serve the same function as a corporate logo - a recognizable common trait, intended to identify products of common origin in a single glance. Surely AC/DC wants its customers to be able to recognize albums easily on the shelf[5], and the logo helps to that end. We might like to think that musicians are above commercial concerns, but they aren't. Neither are the companies who distribute their products. For those reasons, I think logos such as the Beatles' are as relevant to the articles as 3M's, to borrow your example. SixFourThree (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

That may seem to work in theory, but not every band has a logo, and bands often change logos frequently. You'd struggle to find a company or charity without a logo, and they are a little more constant than band logos. Furthermore, as I have already said, bands do not have the same concern of corporate image as companies do. The logo is simply not as important to those studying the group, which is who we're aiming to appease- not the band themselves, so whether AC/DC wants their logo to be seen is frankly irrelevant. J Milburn (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I cannot agree with the notion that "bands do not have the same concern of corporate image as companies do". In what way? And on what do you base that? Bands create products for sale. They market those products to an audience, and successful bands are the ones who do this well. Sure, some musicians may claim to be above such concerns, but that's just another marketing tactic. Which successful bands were truly uninterested in the marketing of their image? As far as bands some bands changing their logo, I don't see that as terribly relevant, unless the latest logo from AT&T is to somehow indicate it doesn't value its brand. Palm, Inc. changes its logo with some frequency, but that doesn't mean their logo should automatically be excluded from the article. Perhaps not all band logos would be notable enough to warrant inclusion in an article, but many successful bands have used a logo for decades - the Beatles, Rolling Stones, KISS all spring immediately to mind - and it strains credulity to think that those iconic logos don't form a major part of their image, or that those studying the group aren't interested in learning about the group's marketing strategies. I would argue that in cases such as those, it is entirely proper to include such a logo in the article on the band. SixFourThree (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

So would I, and that's exactly what this guideline says- any logo that is truly significant (as in, has been discussed by reliable sources, or perhaps even just by the band members themselves) warrants a place in the article, alongside where the article discusses it. If it has never been discussed by anyone, how on Earth can it be considered significant? J Milburn (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood your argument - all that the guideline requires is that the logo be mentioned in the text. From your posts above, I thought you were advocating a higher standard. Glad to see I was wrong. SixFourThree (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

There's a difference between discussing a logo and mentioning it. Logos are non-free images, and so should be treated just the same as any other. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Historical logos

Can we get a clarification on the use of historical logos? Some people seem to be saying that historical logos violate fair use unless there is discussion of the logo itself in the article. I say that a historical logo is an identification of the subject of the article at a previous time, and thus is acceptable without any commentary necessary (other than identifying the logo as historical, rather than current). DHowell 23:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

how old? If it's old enough, fair use isnt even an issue, since trademark and copyright protection will have long since expired in every country wikipedia seems to care about for such things. Sparr 10:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

For corporate logos created in the United States, any from before 1923 are in the public domain. Those created between 1923 and 1977 had a copyright term of 28 years, and could have been renewed for another 28 years, but the onus was on the copyright holder to have done so. Beginning January 1 1978, the copyright is a single term expiring 95 years from first publication. However, when Congress modified the copyright law, they extended current copyright protections back to 1964, but only for works with a copyright notice.

This is my understanding for historical (no longer in use) logos from the United States as they apply to Wikipedia: any such logo created more than 56 years ago is in the public domain. Old logos still in use (eg. CBS Eye logo) should still bear a trademark tag and be treated as non-free. As most logos are used for a relatively short duration, for those created prior to 1964, their original copyright has expired, and it is unlikely that the copyright was renewed. For logos created between 1964 and 1977, copyrights were extended only if a copyright notice accompanies the logo, not the case with the overwhelming majority of logos. Therefore, it is my belief that with the exception of logos with a copyright notice, historical logos created before January 1 1978 are in the public domain, and the licensing for these should be changed to public domain. Logos created since 1978 are covered under current U.S. Copyright Law, and are clearly non-free for 95 years after publication.

My information comes from the Cornell Copyright and Public Domain page and from the Non-free content guideline. I invite all comments, confirmations and criticisms (with which I reserve the right to disagree). dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Mike Godwin, legal counsel for Wikipedia has been consulted and does not believe that the use of properly documented historical images violates any fair use laws. See link to discussion with Godwin's response. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#How.2C_when.2C_and_why_for_historical_logo WhisperToMe (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

SVG nonfree logos - allow or not?

Okay, this needs to be sorted once and for all. OTHERWISE, people are going to keep uploading logos in SVG, and the admins will be forced to make the choice between leaving them all due to the sheer number or destroying all that work. Plus, with no clear statement on the issue, editors may on the other hand upload logos as rasters well below fair use resolution just to be safe, leaving Wikipedia looking a little ugly. This is just my opinion, but I think Wikipedia looks fairly unprofessional when a logo has just been pulled directly from a group's homepage.

Personally, here's what I think should happen, to avoid this argument happening later down the line:

• SVG should be declared the format to be used for free logos, if possible
• PNG should be declared the format to be used for nonfree logos, with alpha transparency if possible

It would be nice if someone could make a bot that would use rSVG (or whatever the Wikimedia software uses) to convert those nonfree SVGs to PNGs. Most of them are tagged with {{SVG-Logo}} or can be tagged with it. I would do it myself, but I'm not a programmer; existing code could probably be easily retooled to the task, however. It's a much better solution than simply deleting these logos, after all it's not the fault of the editors who went to the trouble to find the SVGs that the rules were in an unfixed state. I Love SVG (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings. But we need a clear resolution if we can, as non-free raster images are speedily deleted (unused) when they are replaced with non-free SVGs. I know they stay around in the database for admins to undelete them, but ordinary editors can't get at them. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Reversion isn't always the best option anyway, in some cases the old raster would be inferior (lower resolution than required for fair use, or without alpha transparency) to a conversion of the SVG. - I Love SVG (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out some previous discussions which deal with this topic (here and here) for anyone who hasn't already read them. Gr1st (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It may be time to do some wikiarchaelogy to find out why this paragraph was deleted:

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.

The discussions Gr1st linked seemed to support that approach, and it is exactly what I Love SVG is proposing. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm largely in agreement with the points raised by Interiot stated in this discussion: unlike raster images, SVG files do not have a resolution per se. Therefore, as stated by the proviso at the top of Category:Fairuse images that should be in SVG format (which was created as a result of said discussion), fair-use SVGs should be acceptable as long as they do not include appreciably more detail than is necessary to display them accurately at the required resolution. I can't see anything approaching a consensus to completely get shot of non-free vector images in previous discussions. Additionally, as User:Stannered suggested above, I wonder whether some sort of technical restriction on the rendering size of non-free SVGs might be possible. Gr1st (talk) 10:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No because we still serve the raw SVGs so reusers can resuse them at any size. Since most logos are fairly simple talk of controling the level of detail is pretty much meaningless in SVG format.Geni 13:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So a 3-2 majority now counts as "little support for SVG", does it? Gr1st (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, a 3-2 "majority" is definitely not consensus, that's for sure. (Consensus tends to be considered around 70% and above). _TalkIslander 19:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think its a bit odd to categorically state that SVG is incompatible for fair use. After all its not impossible that the logos where in SVG to begin with. Any mass deletion process would destroy thousands of hours of work. Moreover it would be fair to the user that were actively encouraged to covert everything non-photographic image material to SVG format. If this really is a problem, the first step would be to remove {{SVG}}-templates by bot from fair-use images and blocking new uploads of SVG logos. --Soman (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Can the advice of the Wikimedia Foundation’s lawyers be asked on this? The discussion so far seems like pure speculation to me. —jacobolus (t) 23:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Was anything ever decided here in the best part of a year? The debate seems to have sparked up again here and here --Nigelj (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sports logos

A straw poll was recently conducted in a related RFC regarding non-free images in sports. Any thoughts on it, the Straw poll summary, and proposed guidelines on image use are appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Cropping trademark/copryight logos on covers

There has been a discussion on the Video game article guidelines page about implications of cropping a logo in PhotoShop or any other similar program to remove the console's logo for use on an infobox. We are trying to get an expert opinion whether this would violate any copyright or trade laws.

NOTE: there is also a seperate NPOV issue as well.陣内_Jinnai 00:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the specific image involved here? Can you cite one? — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea, a links been posted on the page. Also this could have much wider implications in DVDs, etc.陣内_Jinnai 00:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been an ongoing debate about whether it violates any copyright law to crop an image with the explicit intent to remove a logo from it for the purposes of WP:NPOV in the Video Games Wikiproject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#COPYVIO implications and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Which box art to use as well as invisual game talk pages too numerous to mention.

We need someone versed in trademark and probably copyright law to give an answer.陣内_Jinnai 19:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thorough discussion on SVGified logo

Wikipedians are invited to participate in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#PNG better than SVG if the logo is copyrighted ?. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 16:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

PD-ineligible and the wording of this page

{{PD-textlogo}}:

This page: "logos that consist purely of characters from a typeface are also uncopyrightable". So where do we stand with simple geometric shapes? I thought they were ineligible. Also, how does this reflect on the hexagons of File:American Chemistry Council Logo.jpg? - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 19:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

{{commons:Template:PD-shape}} would be the thing we need to create. MBisanz ^talk 19:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Logos for sporting EVENTS

This case came up a little while ago at FAC. It was about the use of the 2004 World Series logo in its respective article. As it stands, the image has been removed by some users that believe it does not meet WP:NFCC and a generic trophy picture has been inserted in its place (See: 2005 World Series article with logo). Personally, I think the logo should be used, as it was shown throughout an entire MLB season in most World Series promotions. Furthermore, I think the fact that the annual series has its own logo each year conveys a sense of importance that cannot be conveyed otherwise. Either way, most sporting event articles use logos and there should probably be some policy about this mentioned on this page. Any thoughts? --Torsodog^Talk 13:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur that the logo should be used, but this is an ongonig debate that has raged for at least 3 years. If there are no objections here, I'd recommend using the logo. Make sure to include a Fair-Use rationale. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Rabhyanker essay

Rabhyanker (talk · contribs) recently added around 5 KB worth of text to this page. While it appears well-cited and well-written, I'm someone concerned that it is still the work of one editor, and speaks authoritatively on a sensitive subject. I don't really object to what's there -- indeed, I would like it to be true -- but I would also like to see it reviewed by others who are knowledgeable in the field. That's why I added an editorial note. I'm not in a position to dispute any of the claims made. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it. It was written in essay format, as well- if Rabhyanker has an interest in discussing the issue, the talk page is here. Adding big swathes of loosely related discussion to guideline pages is hardly useful. J Milburn (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see his talk page where we are attempting to help distinguish between unfettered use of US trademarks and non-free issues of copyrighted trademarks per WP policy. --MASEM (t) 06:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A flag for Irish sport team

Hi, there have been [very] long discussions about the way to represent Ireland in Rugby Union where the island plays as one team (Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in one team), Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union#Ireland_flag_.28yet_again.2C_and_again.2C_.....29. One possible solution is the flag File:Irelands Flag.svg which is used by the official international body in rugby union, the International Rugby Board. However it features in the center the logo of the Irish Rugby Football Union which is copyright. There is therefore a concern that this flag may not be allowed to be used as a flag icon for pages like the Six Nations Tournament, or the Heineken Cup. As a consequence, on these pages, Irish teams are the only one without flag icons. This is not good for people looking to find quickly Irish teams in the page. In addition the absence of flags for Irish teams only may give the impression that Wikipedia has a policy not to represent Ireland as a unified team which could be perceived as a judgement on what Ireland is and is not (I precise I am not Irish and have no interest in Irish debates).

So in order to find a way to give a flag icon for Irish teams I would like to ask:

1. Could the use of this flag be accepted under the rule of "fair use", maybe with the specific exemption that it is used in a similar way as a country flag (and not like a commercial brand) outside Wikipedia.
2. If not, is there a way to make an official request to the Irish Rugby Football Union to get an agreement from them for the flag to be used as a flag icon?

I think the passage who relate the most to this question in the present article is: "Note that it is not necessary to seek formal permission from the owner in advance of using its logo, so long as the usage is fair use, does not create any impression that the logo is associated with Wikipedia or endorses either Wikipedia or the article in which the logo appears, and does not create any reasonable grounds for complaint by the owner."

Thanks! Gpeilon (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarification requested on use of logos in sports subarticles

I've had a disagreement with User:Andyhi18 over the use of three logos, File:AnaheimAngels2.png and File:WingedANA.png and File:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.svg in season articles. As I understand it, it's common practice to not use non-free logos in season articles, unless the logos are for those specific season for reasons that seem obvious to me. Specifically, these logos represent teams, not seasons. Whichever way we go, could we be more specific about the wording (and if WP:LOGO does apply to subarticles, then the boilerplate rationale needs to be rewritten)?

Also, we probably also need to remind users not to use the boilerplate rationale for in-article use of non-free logos, like describing the evolution of a team/company logo. --Mosmof (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That is certainly a matter of debate (3 years and running now), but more importantly, the last logo you mentioned is no more than a letter and an oval. As such {{pd-textlogo}} applies and the image can be used anywhere on Wikipedia. Please note that {{trademark}} also applies, so use OUTSIDE WP or in a manner where using it to represent something that isn't the Angels is improper. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Searching the archives told me the debate is far from resolved, but as far as common practice in baseball articles, it seems text logos are used freely in season articles, but they are left blank where only copyrighted logos are available, so perhaps this is something I should bring up at WP:BASEBALL? --Mosmof (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Text logos are ineligible for copyright. Ergo, they are "free" (still trademarked though). I have not found a team yet that does not have a text-only logo. While not 100% accurate (sometimes the dates are wrong), http://www.sportslogos.net/ is a good place to find such logos. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

To update, I've re-licensed File:AnaheimAngels2.png as PD-textonly and replaced the use of File:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.svg with the simpler hat insignia, commons:File:Anaheim Angels 02-04 cap logo.gif, uploaded at Commons. I'm not sure if there is a free replacement for File:WingedANA.png, the logo used in the late 90s. Looking at this site, which seems pretty comprehensive, there wasn't a simple text logo for the team between 1997 and 2001, when all team logos and scripts employed some sort of graphic, either the wings or a stylized halo. --Mosmof (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

File:ImagineRIT.svg

Looking for some input on the logo, my view is that arranging simple geometric shapes over each other to make half moon shapes des not make it an original creation and that it should be licensed as a public domain text image as there are no novel designs to it, only the way it is arranged using generic elements. [:Category:Public_domain_images_ineligible_for_copyright] contains maint images with similar designs.--Terrillja _talk 23:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

SVG logo rendered at 2000px

File:Animallogouk.svg is the logo used in the article Animal (clothing) and has the correct non-free use justifcation. However the logo is also rendered in PNG format at various resolutions up to 2000 pixels. This is clearly in contravention of the conditions stated in {{SVG-Logo}} - "this image should not be rendered any larger than is required for the purposes of identification and/or critical commentary". Given that the logo is used in the infobox at 200px, I fail to see why the other resolutions are needed and seek guidance on how to get them deleted. --Simple Bob (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the nature of an SVG. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm familiar with SVG, but go look at the file and you will see it has links to PNG files rendered up to 2000px. --Simple Bob (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because you can render SVGs at any size you want. Wether they are non-free or not. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You can do that yourself - but providing direct download links on the page to a 2000px PNG image is surely against the policy stated in the template posted on the page. I don't understand how this contradiction can be allowed. --Simple Bob (talk) 06:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, that part of the guideline is more wish than reality. It is fatherly advice for the users and reusers, it is security trough obscurity. I don't see the point of it, and I certainly find it a bad reason to adapt the software which adds those links to SVG pages. [[Notwithstanding, we still have an obligation to point out to people that using this image at high resolutions might not constitute a fair use. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with simple bob here. Fair use rationale is gone if wikipedia is providing large images. There is no "security through obscurity". The problem is using SVG at all for fair use logos. Wikipedia isn't running out of bytes so saving a little space on low resolution images doesn't really do anything. What it does do is violate the FUR by having wikipedia host copies of the logo which are not low res. While there is no specific definition for low res, 2000px certainly isn't it.--Crossmr (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

So shan't we propose the policy to disallow SVG, then? Classical geographer (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No! We should not. If Wikimedia software didn't automatically generate these aforementioned PNG formats out of this SVG file, Firefox, Internet Explorer and Opera could do that natively. Even if Wikipedia entirely ban SVG, it is still very easy to generate high-resolution SVG files; in fact, the mere presence of this SVG file is the evidence for this assertion of mine: SVG logos on Wikipedia are mostly made by a Wikipedian out of their raster versions.

So, assume good faith in our visitors and don't bother making life more difficult for benevolent Wikipedians (with high-resolution display and weaker eyes) in an already-failed attempt of doing something that is none of Wikipedia's business. After all, Wikipedia is not a police force; its merely an encyclopedia with no firm rules.

I say if you are willing to help protect intellectual properties of others, you had better spent you time and efforts on resolving and preventing WP:NFCC#3a violations.

Fleet Command (talk) 11:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

And, by the way, Crossmr, there is no such thing "FUR through use of low resolution" outside Wikipedia. It's just an invention of NFCC writers. Fleet Command (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You'd have to take that up with the NFCC writers. Unfortunately what we've decided as a community that is required for Fair use is not supported by SVG and it should be thrown out. If the file type cannot conform to our requirements it shouldn't be used plain and simple.--Crossmr (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense! Wikipedia has decided that SVG is the best format for logos. If you doubt me, look it up in Wikipedia:Image use policy, Wikipedia:Logos and Wikipedia:Images. Instead of taking us all for criminals and pirates, assume good faith. Neither Wikipedia nor law have banned this form of use, why do you bother doing it? Fleet Command (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Just answer these two questions: 1 - Does Wikipedia require that fair use images be low resolution? 2 - Can SVGs be rendered, without loss, at resolutions well beyond any reasonable consideration of what would be a low resolution? If you can answer those two questions honestly you have my answer. As far as the law, this very issue which was brought up well before this particularly discussion was started long ago is now causing a very real issue.--Crossmr (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Answer number 1: No and no! No, because Wikipedia does not firmly require anything; it has no firm laws. And no, because Wikipedia does not require low resolution; it requires avoidance of excessive resolution. In fact, if you read NFC, you'll realize that images uploaded to Wikipedia must have enough quality and enough resolution.

Answer number 2: Don't play with words. Censorship and imposing of restrictions upon benevolent Wikipedians with the pretext of preventing law violation is a poor excuse, especially when these restrictions have nothing to do with laws. Banning SVG in Wikipedia for the fear of copyright violation is analogous to banning kitchen knife in kitchens for the fear of murder — even worse.

Fleet Command (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

See you couldn't even answer the questions objectively. The only person playing with words is you. If any image that has a fair use rationale is too big, you'd be one of the first to complain. Whether wikipedia requires images be low resolution or just not "excessive" resolution has zero bearing on the second question. The fact is that SVG can display, without loss, the image at an excessive resolution. There is no playing with words. It is simple fact. SVG is not compliant with our requirements for images used under fair use. In fact banning it does absolutely nothing to damage to wikipedia. PNG is fine for Logos. In fact it is better, because it can't be used to violate our fair use requirements. There is no advantage from using SVG, because wikipedia doesn't require the infinite scalability that it provides. The argument of "we're not criminals" is irrelevant. You simply cannot escape the fact that SVG is not compliant with our requirements.--Crossmr (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you always resort to such fantastic straw man tactics to further your own ends? You keep saying "our requirements" while you don't even know what Wikipedia's requirements is. Use of SVG for logos is Wikipedia's requirement; it is explicitly mentioned in the guidelines that I linked to above. Fleet Command (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you always start to dance around the issue when you've got nothing to defend your point of view? Wikipedia's requirements for fair use is that the image is not of excessive resolution. SVGs can be rendered as such. Thus they fail. There is nothing straw man about that and has been the basis of my (and others) argument since the beginning. The community has unfortunately made 2 decisions which are at odds with each other. Another central discussion will be required or a trip to arbcom if that fails, but the "We didn't expect that any of our users would violate someone's trademark with an infinitely scalable logo" line probably won't hold up if it just came right down to it.--Crossmr (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not dance around the issue and I'm standing right on my point: SVG must not be banned or restricted! Neither copyright laws demand low resolution nor Wikipedia mandates it so firmly that you do. (Wikipedia has no firm laws, remember?) Why require low resolution when copyright laws don't require it? Instead of enforcing a new ban, enforce a new freedom: Remove this nonsensical NFCC lowest-possible-resolution requirement.

As for NFCC and SVG being at odds, I strongly disagree: Its just the acknowlegement of the facts. Everyday I see non-free raster images with colossal image sizes and downsize them. We SVG my trouble is considerably less: I only have to ensure that it is not rendered at unnecessary resolution; 90% of times, it is so. Face the truth: SVGs in Wikipedia rarely ever violate copyright. If there is any format to be considered "criminal" and to be banned in Wikipedia, it's your beloved PNG format. The fact is: law enforcement is an exhaustive and inefficient method of preventing misconduct. Proper training and delivery of information isthe proper way.

—Fleet Command (talk) 08:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That is something you need to take up with a central discussion. Just because you think requiring low resolution copies is bad doesn't mean the community feels that way. The fact is right now, the guidelines and policies state that that is the case. It is part of the requirement of the fair use rationale. Don't meet it, the image will be deleted. SVG violates that every time it is used, with the click of a button it violates it. A handy link is even provided. As for strawmans, what is wrong with PNG? attempts at enlarging it will cause loss. While it provides a nice clean copy at a low resolution, it doesn't provide the same at a high resolution which is what SVG does. If Wikipedia is serving images even at 0.00001% of the time at unreasonable resolutions, it's a problem.--Crossmr (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong! Just because YOU think SVGs are evil doesn't mean that they are so; and don't pretend to be representing a whole community. Wikipedia requires SVG for logos — I even provided a link that states so. Wikipedia also requires SVGs to be rendered at a minimum acceptable resolution, per NFCC#3a. Now, if you love to ban and censor image formats, neither I nor Wikipedia (per that aforementioned guideline) like to do so.

And don't speak of percentages without understanding the context: Banning one image format won't fix the problem; it makes the problem manifest itself in another format. (I did explain that twice.) The solution to NFCC#3 non-compliance is to properly inform users, and not to enforce laws with iron fists, the way you are doing — banning file formats and all that — especially in Wikipedia that has no firm laws.

Besides, (for the third time,) you are trying to solve a nonexistent problem: High resolution does not pose a threat of copyright violation, so stop pretending that there is a serious problem at all.

Fleet Command (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

1 - I'm not the only user who raised this concern, 2 - this concern has been raised before, 3 - I am not doing anything except having a discussion, 4 - if you're going to make pointless arguments, either defend them or don't make them. You claimed there was a problem with PNG, prove it or retract it. 5 - I didn't quote any statistics, I simply said that even if it was that small of a problem, it was still a problem. You claimed 90%, where did you get that number? Prove it or retract it. SVG presents a unique problem. No one talked about banning it, it was simply pointed out that it isn't compliant with our requirements for fair use rationales. The discussion is about not using them in that situation. They could be used for other images in which that isn't a concern. But then that is more strawmanning on your part, nowhere did I say wikipedia has to ban SVG. The fact is this issue already came up with the FBI and their logo being rendered at high resolutions. It is an issue when the FBI has a problem with something we're doing. It also isn't a copyright issue, it's a trademark issue.--Crossmr (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

“ nowhere did I say wikipedia has to ban SVG. ” — —Crossmr (talk · contribs), This talk page, 13 August 2010

“ Unfortunately what we've decided as a community that is required for Fair use is not supported by SVG and it should be thrown out. ” — —Crossmr (talk · contribs), This talk page, 2 August 2010

But I am not going to give any further examples. You are in deep error and since you love your error, you are not open to any discussion. Hence our discussion ends here. I said all I had to say and won't be replying anymore unless you have something really new to say. Fleet Command (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

that's not banning SVG. that is a case of not using it for fair use logos. SVG can still be used in other appropriate situations.--Crossmr (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There is also a point to be made that most logos are designed to have 'similar' visual feedback at almost any resolution. Small, big, it doesn't really matter. You recognize the brand, that's the point. A logo is often designed to be as recognizable at a 50x50 resolution as at a poster resolution (more resolution is a bonus, but not a requirement for the power of the artwork). Fair use of a photograph is different in that you almost always make the image smaller to not impact the commercial resale value of the original high resolution material. But with a logo, there is no commercial value in the resolution, because that value is limited by trademark law. The only value is in the physical size (as opposed to resolution) of the print of the logo. And even then, if I print a 100px logo at Stadium size, you will still recognize it as the NBC logo. Because that is the point of the work. Others will say, ok, but where to draw the line. Well that's always a problem of course, yet there are some things you call a logo and others you call a drawing, yet technically there isn't that much of a difference either. So I propose to draw that line right there. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because they're designed to do that, doesn't mean we have to actually provide it. Logos don't need to be rendered at 2000px to identify the brand/organization on wikipedia. If you're eyesight is that bad, have someone describe it to you. As far as print goes, trying to print a 100px logo at a large size will result in it looking terrible. It will be very apparent that it did not come from an official source. Providing an infinitely scalable file crosses that line. It is completely unnecessary for wikipedia's purpose and violates our community decided-upon requirements for a fair use rationale.--Crossmr (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TheDJ that logos are different from, for example, historical photographs, where the low resolution implies a quality print cannot be made from them. A logo is a logo at any size. Moreover, the simplicity of many logos means anyone handy with Illustrator could easily reproduce them. However, whether that means we can provide the means to all and sundry is a difficult matter. (My suggestion above to ban all SVG was intended as ironic.) Classical geographer (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

When this has been debated extensively in the part, the consensus view has been that an SVG should not contain any finer detail than is needed for it to render properly for the purpose being claimed -- i.e. it's okay that the SVG can be rendered at 2000px, so long as the SVG file only contains the information needed for it to render properly at 300px (or whatever resolution is claimed necessary to achieve the purpose for which fair use is being claimed). Jheald (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Most SVG logos are extracted from official company PDF sources, for what it's worth - hand tracing is never a good idea, however. Connormah 15:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

and due to the nature of SVG whatever will render it at 300px will render just fine at 2000px, that's the problem.--Crossmr (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The position that has been established is that it is not a problem. We're not providing any more than needed for the purpose we're claiming, so our use is fair and above board.

Also, for material like logos featuring trademarks, it's always better to use an official version if possible, to avoid any possibility that we might be tarnishing or misrepresenting the mark. Jheald (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)