Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> writes:
elian wrote:
Someone wanted to place the emblem (coat of arms
or whatever the correct
english term is) of a city to the article about it and was unsure if this
is legal. In Germany there are laws about "Hoheitszeichen" like flags,
emblems, which restrict the right to use them.
What kind of restrictions are there? I'm just curious.
It's forbidden to use them in misleading context, f.e. in letters for the
purpose to make them appear as coming from government institutions, or to
put them on products or use them in ads.
How is the
legal situation? I suppose wikipedia is in the sphere of
american law. If it's legal, do we have to redraw the emblems ourselves or
can we take the "official" images?
It seems unlikely to me that the emblem of a city is copyright.
Aren't most of them really old, at the least?
Yep. I don't think they are really copyrighted, there rather appears to be
special laws about them (as above). And the problem I forgot to mention:
if we include them in Wikipedia it means we are putting them under a new
licence, the GFDL, which knows nothing about these restrictions (which
still apply). Or do I misunderstand the concept of GFDL here? So it seems
we have a conflict here.
It's possible. But some legal experts think that
the Supreme Court
will rule -- correctly, perhaps -- that the Constitution gives the
power to set the term of copyrights to the Congress, and that the
recent extensions fall well within the realm of the Congressional
public policy setting functions.
http://eldred.cc/ is a good resource to learn more.
Even if the Supreme Court rules one way, it is possible for Congress
to change their minds. This is somewhat unlikely because (a) the
general public doesn't seem to care much and (b) the people who do
care, care a lot (and contribute mightily to congressional campaigns).
Thanks for the explanations :-)
greetings,
elian
--
Zucker ist der Stoff, der dem Tee einen bitteren Geschmack
verleiht - wenn man vergisst, ihn hineinzutun...