Talk:Happy Human

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Following its redesign, should Rackspace be included in the list of organisations using the logo?

Rackspace website

(Pharkie (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

The free-drawn symbol on the main page is inelegant and ill proportioned - not that I could draw it any better. But the BHA as copyright owners (I am a trustee) would be happy to license use of the proper version, as found in the link, for use in Wikipedia but not for free use and adaptation by just anyone. This does not seem to be allowed for in the automated system - can anyone help?

David Pollock - david.pollock@virgin.net

Unfortunately, I believe that the kind of license you are describing is specifically disallowed by the rules, which require that the entire contents of the encyclopedia must indeed be available for free use and adaptation by just anyone. Pissant 23:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case, it should be noted that (in the United States at least) simply having a symbol that was redrawn but obviously meant to allude to the trademarked symbol is not good enough to make it 'free use'. If any copyrighted image was inspired by or played a part in the formation of an image, then it is a copyright violation. If an attorney asks a person on trial, "did this original image in any way inspire or play a role in the creation of your image" and he either answers "yes" or the jury disbelieves him when he answers "no", then he is guilty of copyright violation. All these little things you see all over the place with slightly altered images and names (like "Dark Nader" instead of "Darth Vader") are NOT safe - they are violations because they were inspired by the copyrighted material. So, if this were purely an American affair then the image in this article, recreated though it is, would NOT be safe to use freely without the permission of the copyright holder. However, I don't know what Britain's laws are, or how the interaction of the two nations works (but I suspect the U.S. and U.K. cooperate greatly in copyright protections). And, note that all of this applies to the more basic copyright (which they automatically hold merely by being the original creators) - without even invoking the issue of Trademark.--Daniel 14:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Happy Human'-like symbols: status?

The article mentions the copyright of the Happy Human. It then states that a number of organizations uses it or an adapted version. The latter can still be said about the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Asociation (2 figures in the style of the Happy Human). The Council for Secular Humanism uses a stylized human figure with the arms up, but the drawing style makes it very dubious whether the Happy Human copyright, an thus that name, could still apply: it can hardly be valid for any simplified human figure. The figure used by Humanistic Judaism is even further away from the copyrighted Happy Human. The article should state which organizations' figures fall under the Happy Human copyright and which have a stylized human figure that does not fall under that particular copyright, and should then not be called 'Happy Human'. Their being mentioned in the is article certainly makes sense: they use figures that are likely to have been inspired by the 'Happy Human'. Another possibility (though both could go together), is actually showing the figures (directly if such would not violate some copyright, or by an external link to the home page of each Humanist organization). As it stands now, I think the article may be giving false information. — SomeHuman 24 Sep 2006 18:32 (UTC)

I've made a slight amendment to make it clear that we're talking about a trademark, not merely "copyright". The BHA owns the trademark in the UK, but I don't know the situation in other jurisdictions. --Dannyno 14:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)