Benjamin Esham wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Benjamin Esham wrote:
The seal is codified in law, which is necessarily public domain. Suppose I were to work from the law's definition of the seal and create an SVG file; would that be considered public domain, since I only created a graphic from a PD textual description? Even then, the question remains of what I am allowed to do with the image I created.
I can't see what you are trying to accomplish with this game. If it's your original photograph you can do what you want with it.
I was just wondering about the copyright of that particular rendering of the seal—it's a carved wooden disk—versus the copyright of J. Random User's rendering of the seal. ISTM that the latter use would not be in violation of any copyrights, but might still be caught by the clause disallowing use of the seal by unauthorized persons.
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.
Does Wikipedia have any established guidelines on the legality of the use of coats of arms and seals?
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.
I tried the link that you gave to your picture, but it does not give me the picture.
Hmm... try http://tinyurl.com/252t2e. The link was probably broken due to line wrapping somewhere.
This leaves me the impression that the complaint is much ado about nothing.
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.
Which complaint are you referring to, their complaint about our inclusion of the image? I hope it is nothing, but I'm not looking forward to trying to explain to them that our fair use rights trump their law ;-)
That facetious comment on my part was somewhat based on my erroneous belief that the image was no longer available. In this case I think that our proper fair use WOULD trump their law, but it's always easier to avoid having to make that defence. This is why in legal circumstances it can be better to know the answer before you ask the question. What you are really trying to do when you ask the question is to get them to confirm what you already know.
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.