Image talk:Notre dame coat of arms.png

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] copyright status

"The copyright on those works was not renewed and has subsequently expired, but the image's use as a trademark is still protected."

Doesn't that mean that the image can't be in the public domain, which therefore means it's tagged incorrectly? Esrever 04:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Let's add the Trademark template. As you can see, though, several works not copyrighted, such as Coca-Cola's logo, use the PD template (to show no copyright problems) and also the Trademark template (to warn others not to misuse).Pmadrid 04:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] problem with using not-free-image template

Esrever, I completely agree with your argument regarding whether an image which, while not under copyright, is not completely free (libre) and therefore is not technically in the public domain.

However, the tags used in Wikipedia for public domain don't actually mean "public domain." They mean "free from copyright." This is most plainly seen in the text of the template itself, which requires one to list a fair use rationale. You don't need a fair use rationale if something is not protected under copyright, even if it might be protected under trademark.

This image is free from copyright and thus can be copied as long as it's not used as a trademark.

If you really want to be technically correct about this, I suggest changing the not-free-image template to less of a copyright bias. For example, remove the "needs a fair-use rationale" part. Perhaps also you could make a new template for "not protected by copyright." I would be totally ok using one of those labeling schemes. Until then, I think we should stick with the combo of PD-US and trademark to avoid accidental deletion because of the absence of a fair use rationale that does not need to be there. Pmadrid 14:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, check Wikipedia:Public Domain for Wikipedia's definition of the public domain. Pmadrid 14:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)