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