User talk:Menasim/Userboxes/User Google

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Using the Google logo 2 Colours 3 tfd 4 changed the wiki link to the actual search engine 5 Trademark 6 A link to Google 7 The colors 8 Revert to original

[edit] Using the Google logo

On the Google website, it says: If you would like to include a link to Google on your web page, feel free to use one of our official logo "stickers" below. [1]

Since that is all the userbox essentially does, provide a link to Google, I believe it is alright to use this. This particular usage also fulfills all the other criteria: it does not compete with Google in any way, it does not claim that Google supports or endorses the user in any way, and it is not prominent. On the flip side, I'm sure Google would be more than happy to see users putting this up, as it is an endorsement OF Google, and not the other way around.

On a side note, just to clarify any possible misconception, I'm NOT trying to indulge in some kind of revert war. I made the change because I looked up the above. If there are still issues with using this, I won't fight it. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 13:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry in advance if I sound a little "snappy" but I've had this exact discussion about 5 times already at various other userbox template talk pages. The gist of it is this: What Google give permission to do is irrelevant. Wikipedia policy says copyrighted material should not be used in templares or userpages period. It doesn't matter what the copyright holder says, you can't even use copyrighted images you yourself own the copyright to on your own userpage acording to Wikipedia policy (unless you release them under GFDL or a compatable free license, wich is unlikely to happen in the case of the Google or any other logo). So the "it's legal" or "Google don't mind" argument is kinda moot. Compare to other situations. A US citizen have a constitutional right to "free speech", but if he writes an article like a political rant it doesn't matter than he has the constitution on his side, his rant will still be deleted acording to Wikipedia policy because it's not NPOV. Simmilarly it's perfectly legal to upload images with a "for non-commerical use only" (since Wikipedia itself is not commercial), but Wikipedia policy states that material should be freely re-usable, even for commercial purposes, and so such images are deleted (or converted to "fair use"). This policy might seem overly paranoid in situations where the copyright holder allow, or even encourage people to use theyr logos and what not, but IMHO it's stil the best policy overall. There is no "red tape" involved, if it's copyrighted it can't be used, end of discussion. No need to drag it before a comitte and try to determine of this or that particular use is likely to hurt the copyright holder in any way and such, wich is a good thing for userpages, we rely should not have to spend a lot of time and effor to "police" them (and the case against using them in templates is that strictly speaking Wikipedia policy require the copyrighted image to have a fair use rationale for each article it's used in, an impossible task if the image is used in a stub template or something where it can easily end up inserted on hundreds of pages). It also prevent any kind of slippery slope situation where people start arguing that "but if it's ok to use the Google logo or the FireFox logo or whatever, the surely it's ok to use this", and the next thing you know people will start figuring that "well if logos are ok, the surely screenshots fom my favourite movie is ok" and so on and so forth. --Sherool (talk) 14:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

-- -- --

I'm going to assume you're allowing discussion on this since you haven't changed it already. Again, as I said before, I won't fight you if you think it's best, but I will go ahead and post my opinion.

1. Wikipedia policy says copyrighted material should not be used in templares or userpages period.

That's true, but I think it's more revealing if you read the rest of the statement. It says,

Because "fair use" material is not copyright infringement on Wikipedia only when used for strictly encyclopedic reasons, their use in other contexts is likely copyright infringement.

In other words, the reason the images aren't allowed on templates and user pages is the risk of copyright infringement, which, in this case, I've shown is very unlikely.

Should policies be interpretted as being hard and fast? I don't think so, at least, from my own experience. It seems that Wikipedia's policies do allow for exceptions. Compare Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_not_be_linked_to to Wikipedia_talk:External_links#External_linking_to_Flash.2C_Java.2C_etc where there's a solid consensus that there ARE exceptions to this rule. In regards to the fair use question here, I think an exception might be warranted because the reason for the policy does not seem to be an issue.

1. Simmilarly it's perfectly legal to upload images with a "for non-commerical use only" (since Wikipedia itself is not commercial), but Wikipedia policy states that material should be freely re-usable, even for commercial purposes, and so such images are deleted (or converted to "fair use").

I'm not sure why a logo used in a userbox on a user page is any more "freely-reusable" than that same logo being used in an article. In other words, both of them have a specific, legal use. The article may use the logo under the laws of fair use. The userbox may use the logo with Google's specific permission. The moment an editor "reuses" Google's logo for their own ends, he or she has personally crossed the line from the legal permission that Google offers into copyright infringement. As long as Wikipedia does not condone crossing that line, I don't see a problem.

1. It also prevent any kind of slippery slope situation where people start arguing that "but if it's ok to use the Google logo or the FireFox logo or whatever, the surely it's ok to use this",

I don't think this is an issue. First of all, the line I delineated above is very clear. Google gives permission to use the logo under specific circumstances, the userbox being in accordance with those circumstances. If a user decides to use the logo some other way, they've crossed that line. Furthermore, this is ONLY about Google. Other screenshots and logos are irrelevant because the companies they belong to may have (and probably DO have) entirely different policies on the usage of their trademarks. If anyone even tries to use comparison, they're wrong, end of story. Seems pretty basic to me.

Anyways, that's my two cents. Cheers.

-- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 15:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Checking the link provided above, it does not contain the text being quoted. It may be that Google was more free about such things once, but no longer is. Their current instructions quite clearly indicate that permission is required. Accordingly, the logo needs to be removed, consistent with Wikipedia policy. --Michael Snow 00:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I found a picture of someone using Google at Image:Googleplex-SignIn.jpg (on the Commons). Since it is a free photo, I decided to make that the icon. Revert if it looks tacky. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 02:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

---

That is really odd. I could have sworn I linked the right page, but it appears I didn't. Here's the link with the text I quoted on it: Using the Google logo.

-- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 13:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I created this Image:MyGoogle.jpg image using a simple Garamond font and distorting the Google colors. Works? Troy34 03:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm still for using the original, but that one is the best one I've seen in its stead. Very nice. :) Is the coloring a copyrighted part of their logo? It would look great in the original colors.

-- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 13:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The coloring is trademarked and likely could be considered copyrighted as well. Even distorted, it's a derivative work. And given the transparent attempt at imitating the real thing, it could also cause problems with respect to the trademark. Get rid of it. --Michael Snow 04:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Michael, out of curiosity, did you note the (second) link I posted above? -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 06:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't, thanks for finding that. So, it appears that you can use a limited selection of approved logos if they're being used to link back to Google. That's not the case here, of course. And they do have a few fan-created logos on their site, but specifically ask that these not be used elsewhere. --Michael Snow 17:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait, I'm missing something here. What do you mean, "That's not the case here, of course"? That's pretty much ALL the userbox does. It says the user uses Google and it provides a link to Google. What else does the userbox do that could possibly be outside the scope of using it in accordance with Google's wishes? Are you saying that just because the image itself doesn't link directly to Google's page (but rather, to a neutral page merely about the image itself), Google wouldn't give its permission? That seems to me to be REALLY splitting hairs, especially when the usage is beneficial to both parties (to Google which gets exposure and to users who want to use the image). As for the fan art, I don't think anybody here suggested using any of those. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 18:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Because the image, or the userbox containing it, doesn't link directly to Google's page, Google hasn't given its permission, that's what I'm saying. If they say "a link to Google", they probably mean "a link to Google", not a link to some third-party page that they don't control. They haven't given permission, so unless somebody gets it from them, the image should be removed. And it's not like Google needs the exposure they would get from this use. (Also, my point about the fan art was not that we should use one of those examples; it was that this image is similarly fan art, and the attitude there is likely to cover this situation as well.) --Michael Snow 19:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright fine. Since we're obviously splitting hairs here, let me point out that you're inserting the word "directly," since that doesn't appear anywhere on that website. The userbox is there in large part as a link to Google, and the image furthers that end; therefore, the image would be used in linking to Google as the website allows. My point regarding the exposure for Google was not in any way that Google needs it, but that if it is beneficial to Google, then they have no reason to NOT give their permission. As for the fan art, I think you've misunderstood the nature of the request. Those fan-created logos were submitted as contributions to Google (many as part of a competition) and Google is asking that users specifically not use them. The statement regarding the logos applies to those logos and those logos only, not to fan-created logos in general. This is NOT to say that fan-created logos are allowable, only that the quotation you're citing isn't germane to this discussion overall. Cheers.

-- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 19:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we use an actual logo, like maybe the Google "G" that Google uses in their Firefox Search Toolbar. Seen here: Image:Google G.png TorontoStorm 23:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I assume Image:Google G.png doesn't conflict with any Wikipedia rules and everyone is fine with it because no one has replied for about 2 weeks, so I'm going to implement it and see how people like it. TorontoStorm 13:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone put in multi-colored lettering; almost certainly an unlicensed derivative work of Google's artwork. I reverted to single colored lettering. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. --Durin 20:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colours

The userbox colours aren't too user friendly... I have had the userbox for a while now and i have seen it changing continuously, aswell as the logo. Maybe we should change the very very faint blue to a faint blue? Maybe it would look more interesting, rather than dull. Afterall, aren't we trying to get people to follow the link? --Ali K 08:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Not really. It's just to share the fact that you use google, not force it upon others. Mushin^talk 17:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tfd

• This template was listed on templates for deletion. The result of the discussion was speedy kept. The full discussion may be found here. _→AzaToth 01:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] changed the wiki link to the actual search engine

Seemed more logical to have a link to Google search than just to Google. Mushin^talk 12:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trademark

By choosing the colors like that in the template, I think, it is still infringing on Google's trademark (Thus fairuse is required). No? BrokenSegue 22:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so...It is just font colors. Now if we were to replicate the font, shadow and size then it would be a copy vio.--24fan24 17:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a copyright violation. It is considerably close enough to be so. --Durin 17:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wha? How's that? I'm asking for some extra sets of eyes over at the village pump; an all-black version of this sucks, and I really miss the colors (and I don't think a handful of font tags constitute a copyvio). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted it back to the original font colours, until someone replies to this and explains to me how bloody font colours are subject to copyright. For example, can I claim that omg is copyrighted to me, and I can sue whomever uses [the font colour combination]? Blast {{subst:#time:d}}.{{subst:#time:m}}.{{subst:#time:y}} {{subst:#time:H}}{{subst:#time:i}} (UTC)

• Sure, if you registered it as a trademark of a company you own. Google's done precisely that. You most definitely can register a logo. Google's logo is a particular combination of letters in a particular font, with a particular color. There is nothing improper about this; and the U.S. government agrees since it granted the trademark status of the logo. If you have issues with the logo being trademarked, and feel this is improper, I suggest you contact the United States Patent and Trademark Office. They can be contacted (in the U.S.) at 800-786-9199.
• As to the representation of the logo using font colors and text; it doesn't matter that it's in text. Google's logo is comprised of text, not an image. Yet, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office still agrees it's trademarkable. Thus, simply because it's only text instead of being an image doesn't release us of copyright obligations. For demonstration purposes, I've created an image using precisely the text you generated and precisely the font colors you use vs. the Google logo from their website. Observe: Image:DemonstrationGoogleLogo.gif. Note that the font used by Google, Book Antiqua, is very similar to the font (Georgia) used in the userbox. The differences between these two versions of the logo are minimal. If you were to create 1,000,000 t-shirts with the logo as you created and tried to sell them, you'd find yourself in court faster than you could put on one of the t-shirts. And that's the issue here; protecting Wikipedia from copyright lawsuits.
• Modifying this userbox to have a logo so similar to that of Google creates a nasty copyright situation and contributes nothing to the value of the encyclopedia. So, we incur significant risk for....no gain. Our focus here is to build an encyclopedia, not to build userboxes. I am reverting the userbox back to the plain text version. Do not re-insert this copyright violation again please. If you wish to debate this, continued reverting is not the method to go about doing so. --Durin 16:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I see ; thank you for providing me with a satisfactory explanation. However, I must reply in response to your last comment that at the time, I saw nothing wrong with the way it had been, and so stetted it. The only explanations I had seen for this up until this point were very vague, and did not defend the change sufficiently. Blast {{subst:#time:d}}.{{subst:#time:m}}.{{subst:#time:y}} {{subst:#time:H}}{{subst:#time:i}} (UTC)

Aside from the fact that it looks like crap in black and white, the rationale is sound for removing the colors (after all, aesthetics don't trump Fair Use). Thanks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could just use one big "G" (as text)? It would be nicer than the black, I think. Tadpole9 22:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Like this?[2] EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks much better. Well done :-) -- AuburnPilot^talk 22:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that looks better. Tadpole9 22:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A link to Google

I think that a link to the Google website should not be included because it would be like an advertisement. A link to the Wikipedia article about Google is enough.

--Meno25 04:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The colors

The new colors are not good. Could the old colors be restored?

--Meno25 14:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

See the "Trademark" section. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You cannot copyright a word. You can 'incorporate' a name (not to be confused with copyright), make a legal trademark, copyright work and an idea, but you cannot copyright a single word for reasons all so obvious. It would allow person(s) or businesses to own any word or letter in the alphabet. For example 'the'. You're welcome to try and cite the law that directs where a persons or corporation can hold the rights to a single word and its usage, but I assure you they cannot. Even trademarks have their own restrictions and its why we can use the name 'Disney' with out being sued unless we falsely use them to make money without paying concessions. In the case of 'Google' and its title, they have incorporated their name and own the rights to their trademark graphic look. If you were for example to re-arrange the colours not to match Google's specific trademarked name, you would be close, but not in violation of that trademark. It would be excessively cost in-effective for them to pay the legal fees to trademark every permutation of their graphic colouring in the letters of 'Google'. Colouring the letters to be similar but not matching Google's graphic would be on the same argument of using all black; to which they cannot legally own. Mkdw^talk 17:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• And the value added to the encyclopedia for having something arguably close to being in violation of their trademark is....? This is a userbox. It has no value to the encyclopedia. Why risk it? --Durin 17:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert to original

I revert to the original userbox because this is much better. Also I made some modifications like changing the font and font size to the userbox and removing the colored internal link. Can you please keep this version -- and the real Google logo must been permitted to the trademark. Jigs41793 ^Talk/_contribs 09:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• That violating law makes a userbox look better is not a reason to violate law. Sorry. I've reverted the change. Please see earlier discussion on this page. --Durin 13:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)