Ray Saintonge wrote:
Now that I've actually seen your picture I wonder whether it is copyrightable. It is essentially a predictable straight-on two dimensional representation of another two dimensional object. It may lack the creative element needed for a copyright picture. Some might still try to argue that because the original is carved into the wood it is not two-dimensional.
This is a good point. Perhaps I'll change the licensing to {{PD-self}} to avoid a debate about it.
Including a picture of a seal is not a use for trademark purposes.
I'm afraid I don't know what you're saying here. Are you just being pedantic about my choice of the word "use"? The County government certainly seemed to think that we were "using" their seal to some extent that is in violation of the relevant law. It's not like we're trying to pose as a county website; we're just including the image for illustrative purposes.
If it ever came to a court argument over this the meaning of "use" would probably be a key issue. Given the nature of Wikipedia work it is perfectly understandable that we would view "use" in terms of copyright law. The terms "free use" and "fair use" are so commonplace for us. Even if we misunderstand those terms it is still from the perspective of copyright law.
The distinction may seem pedantic, but I would be inclined to look further into the law that you quoted to see if there is another section defining the term "use". We do not normally use something by merely showing what it looks like. Using a seal would most likely arise when it suggests some kind of authority to represent the County.
The law states, in part, "such seal shall be used and affixed only [under certain conditions]," and "the use of said seal or of any replica or simulation thereof [...] by any unauthorized person or for any wrongful purpose, is prohibited."
Maybe I'll ask the attorney if he can give an opinion on the definition of "use". I don't think that Wikipedia's use of the image qualifies as "using" it, but then again IANAL.
My fault on this. There had been talk of taking down the image, and I too quickly jumped to the conclusion that that happened. It turned out that it had more to do with my own browser settings.
No worries.
I have forwarded the attorney's letter to the Commons OTRS people; they will be able to remove the image from Commons while we try to determine our legal rights and abilities in this matter.
I really don't see any need to take it down.
Perhaps not, but the gentleman implied that I could be brought up on charges. I'm sure you can understand that I'd like to avoid that if at all possible ;-) That action was just me covering my arse. (Although nothing has been done yet... I just used the general "Commons permission" OTRS e-mail address. Is there a separate one I should have used for legal issues?)
Cheers,