Benjamin Esham wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote
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.
As I said before you need to know the answer before you ask the attorney. Attorneys for putative opponents can give amazingly biased opinions. There should be more to the law than the two paragraphs that you cited.
I note too that you actually live in Livingston County. With a population of only 65,000 it should be easy to get to know who the influential people are in the county. Maintaining contact with a local historical society can also be helpful. See what they think about putting the picture in Wikipedia; ask them what kind of information they believe should appear in Wikipedia on the county and its communities. Consider their advice before adding some of their information. If the legal people want to take a stupid stand on this, these could be useful allies.
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.
CYOA can too easily be used as an excuse for self-suppressing your own rights. A general observation about lawsuits is that 50% of the lawyers are wrong. Simply "suggesting" that you remove it, and making allusion to possible penalties isn't saying very much. Once you determine in your own mind that what you do with the picture is within the law as you understand it what follows becomes a risk management questions. It is impossible protect yourself against all possible outcomes. One can only estimate the probabilities for each step along the way, and multiply them. If they are really intent on pursuing this there should be other opportunities to withdraw before things get out of hand.
(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?)
AFAIK, The permissions queue is only one general one.with subsections for different areas. I don't know that there is a completely separate one for Commons.
Ec