Ilmari Karonen wrote:
The reason I'm taking the time to argue this point
is that I find this
drive to eliminate eminently justifiable fair use content frankly absurd
and also detrimental to the encyclopedia. If I read about the history
of a company, I may very much like to know what their logo used to look
like in the 50's, for example. The only reasonable way to convey this
information is by including a picture of the logo.
Fundamentally, this is about what fair use really means. The law leaves
its definition deliberately vague, relaying instead on the common sense
notion that a use is "fair" if it serves a useful purpose and does not
unduly harm the copyright holder. In this case, we're using these logos
for the purpose of improving the coverage of a free encyclopedia, and
we're not taking anything away from anyone by doing so.
Mind you, if anyone actually were to complain about us including their
logos, we should immediately take them down. But until and unless it
happens, it seems reasonable to me to assume that our use of company
logos in an encyclopedic context, with proper attribution, is doing no
actual or perceived harm to the copyright holders.
I agree with this approach. I would be surprised if there were many
claims of copyright violation regarding logos unless the usage was
clearly abusive. My understanding is that companies like Coca-Cola will
pay to show people using their product in a movie. For them it's cheap
advertising.
For the most part I don't think that these companies are concerned at
all about the copyrights on these logos. Trademarks would be another
matter, but we have nothing to worry about there because we're not
competing in their kind of business.
It's also important to remember that works published before 1989 in the
US had to have a copyright notice. Without that they were and continue
to be in the public domain. Copyright then was not automatic.
So I agree, in the absence of a complaint by the rightsholder including
the logos should be perfectly safe.
Ec