Image talk:LCMS Logo Cross.JPG
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note: LCMS expressly forbids use of the logo cross without permission as its trademark and as under its copyright. see "Who May Use the Logo" The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod Graphics Standards: a Quick Guide --CTSWyneken(talk) 12:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I will check into this. This logo should be allowable, as I represent and work for an LCMS congregation. I will double-check with the Synod office, and will report back with their response. Thanks for your concern! Dulcimerist 20:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I appreciate your willingness to check into it. I'm a librarian at Concordia Theological Seminary and a member of the LCMS myself. --CTSWyneken(talk) 16:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm awaiting a reply from the LCMS Manager of Public Affairs & Media Relations, which will hopefully shed some light on the topic. That's cool that you're a librarian at Fort Wayne! I'm hoping to attend the seminary as soon as I'm able, and I've got some friends attending both seminaries at the moment. Talk with you soon! Dulcimerist 20:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully I'll hear back from someone at the LCMS office with an official LCMS stance to formally put this issue to rest. The LCMS Director of Information Services should be emailing me back on Monday or Tuesday with the answer. Dulcimerist 21:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I beg to differ. The LCMS explicitly forbids the use of the logo without permission. In this case, we know about it. To act anyway is deliberately defying them. Even were it not illegal to do so, it is bad practice and unethical.
The LCMS does see it as in effect a tacit endorsement of the content of the article. That is the difficulty here. Visitors will assume that we agree with the content, which we do not.
Even though Wikipedia acts as if this is fair use, it is not. We have copied the whole image. The use is not educational by court definition and it is used in products for sale (CDs of Wikipedia). The work is creative in all senses of the word. There is a modest effect on the market for electronic versions of the image and it reduces the number of people who would come to the LCMS to get a copy of the logo.
Thus, it is not fair use to put the image on our pages. Permission is necessary. --CTSWyneken(talk) 19:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree the image is usable on the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. The image is a trademark and is used on the article of the owner of the mark, just like the logos on IBM and Harvard and countless other pages. Johntex\talk 21:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I dispute that this use of the Logo Cross image is fair use under copyright law. The above is a trademark argument and does not take into account copyright law. The image is protected by copyright held by the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod. Wikipedia needs to make a fair use justification on these terms. It fails to meet the criteria. See the full argument at Talk:Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod.--CTSWyneken(talk) 11:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Under the four factor test of title 17 of the US Code, the image is a creative expression, a work of graphic art, which is given greater protection than a work of non-fiction. Thus this factor fails to support fair use. It is also the whole of the image, which is an independent work, and so fails the substantiality test. The market test likely favors fair use, although the evaluation above does not represent what the factor is about. The test is if the use we are putting the image to were widespread, how does it effect the market? Would it hinder the sale of T-Shirts, etc. I agree that it would not.
The first factor is unclear, because the example in the text is "nonprofit educational purposes," which courts have defined as accredited institutions of learning. Wikipedia is not an accredited school. On the other hand, it is not a commercial enterprise. So we have two factors weighing against fair use, one which may or may not favor fair use and one that does favor fair use. This use, then, is likely not fair or at best uncertain. --CTSWyneken(talk) 10:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm still awaiting an official LCMS response on this topic... Dulcimerist 21:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)