--- Anthony DiPierro [email protected] wrote:
On 5/2/06, Erik Moeller [email protected] wrote:
When each project has very limited fair use,
pictures like logos or
screenshots should not be an issue, Gerard. As
I've argued before,
there are going to be very, very few cases where a
company will agree
to license their logo under something like CC-ND.
Imagine such a
proposal being sent to Nike. "Dear Nike, we'd like
to use your logo,
could you please license it under Creative Commons
No-Derivatives"?
Corporate lawyers are all about risk minimization;
seeing no benefit
in such an arrangement, most of them would flat
our reject the idea, I
think.
The benefit would be that they get their logo in the Wikipedia article on Nike. For logos, though, companies would probably insist on some sort of "educational use only" restriction. CC-ND is just an example.
Of course, they'd only get that benefit if Wikipedia decided not to use their image if they didn't give permission. So there'd be a risk there, but personally I don't think the Nike article would be any worse without a picture of that swoosh.
The use of CC-ND for logos would actually be
dangerous as it could
prevent us from looking for a better solution.
How would it do that? And what better solution is available now?
Couldn't someone just take a photograph of a sign outside a company's headquarters? I don't see why we have to show the exact graphic of the logo, when we can show it used in context and under GFDL. I have not followed this issue before so forgive me if this has already been throughly discussed.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com