Template talk:Trademark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The language on this template differs somewhat from the language used at commons:Template:Trademarked. Shouldn't they be similar? —RP88 06:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] R symbol is chopped off

On my screen, the the top half of the ® doesn't appear. Am I the only one? nadav 22:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the quirky world of Internet Explorer. I found a fix for that issue, and it should work now. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal to authority?

There is a puzzling statement in the middle of the template: These restrictions make such symbols non-free according to the Definition of Free Cultural Works as adopted by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Neither the definition nor the board resolution make explicit reference to trademarks, so it is left to the reader to infer what is meant. Such works, which would be otherwise be free if not for local trademark laws, have, up to now, been accepted, as long as the use is appropriate for the relevant jurisdiction. The NFC criteria don't address otherwise free trademarks, only {{non-free logo}}s. This confuses me, and, it seems,[1] other editors.

So, why the change? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 02:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed it because I think I'm correctly interpreting the resolution of the Foundation. Indeed en.wikipedia has never had such restrictions apply and some will say we still don't. The problem however is that there is a lack of guidance on this by the Foundation. As interpreted literally, as far as I can infer, trademarks and other restricted non-copyrighted materials are "non-free" because they do not satisfy rule #1 of the Definition of Free Cultural Works: "freedom to use". Apparently we were making an exception for "trademarks". However in the way the current foundation resolution applies, such exceptions are only possible if defined in the "Exemption Doctrine Policy". They are not and as such the image falls in some sort of black hole of ambiguity. The same goes for insignia (flags and other national symbols). Basically, there is not much different here between saying images with trademarks are "non-free" or "free" and these definitions have nothing to do with their copyright status. Non-free is more appropriate since there are usage restrictions. Since you are not allowed to use the images arbitrarily, I think we should have some sort of "usage rationale" for each use if we are to follow the lines set out by the Foundation. (And yes, I am forcing the issue a bit, but that's usually how things get fixed). Ergo the changes are as much an "Appeal to authority" as your question :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we necessarily need a specific written rationale for each usage, as long as an image is used in accordance with the applicable laws, so reducing the risk for the contributor, the project, and its re-users.

It is not entirely clear to me what the Foundation board meant, nor what the Free Cultural Works definition means, when it comes to the myriad of non-copyright restrictions that can apply to cultural works (such as personality rights, slander and libel, flags and heraldry, currency, moral rights, trademark, patent, unfair competition ...). As far as I can tell from first reading, the definition was intended to address copyright licensing and expiration, and not these other legal doctrines, but I am willing to be persuaded otherwise. (I don't read the mailing lists so I may have missed key background to the resolution.)

In the meantime, our templates and policies should address the laws as they apply, rather than make appeals to a Board resolution whose interpretation may be challenged by inclusionist editors, so tying us up in endless debate. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

See my Village Pump post, cause I did notice something in the definition which may swing something here. ViperSnake151 20:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You should not use this image as a logo for your computer company. Neither should you use it to sell records.

This seems to have become something of a forest fire: I see related discussions at least here, at the Village Pump, at WT:NFC and at the Doctor Who WikiProject. There may be others I've missed. In fact, I suspect the place this really should be discussed at would be freedomdefined:Talk:Definition. Anyway, Postdlf made a good point about this at the Pump: any image can violate some trademark in some context: for example, using an image of an apple to sell computers could well be a trademark violation. Thus, it makes no sense to treat trademarks as "other restrictions" in the sense of the Definition of Free Content, since that would essentially mean that free content does not exist, or at least cannot be assumed to remain free. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)