In message 444C6550.5010800@zoomtown.com, Minh Nguyen mxn-Ij6MdEStJ8hWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org writes
Justin Cormack wrote:
On 22 Apr 2006, at 21:40, Ilmari Karonen wrote:
Without seeing any particular examples, my opinion would be that a gallery of past logos used to document the evolution of the visual identity of the company in question generally ought to be acceptable fair use.
*If* you are talking about the evolution of the company logo.
*Not* if you are just talking about the company.
Do we have articles about the history of individual company logos? Not in these cases (yet). So not fair use. Just pretty copyvio pics.
Justinc
In fact, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS_idents is a good example of how to write articles on things as trivial (?) as logos -- as with company's hisorical logos, explaining network idents over the years requires a sizable amount of fair use, and this article seems to do it well, since the images haven't swallowed up the article.
There's also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_television_idents, but that article contains much less in the way of explanation, and might be harder to justify under [[WP:NOT]] and fair use.
Not any more, I spent most of last night writing up the history of BBC idents. The depressing thing is that apart from the "Bat's Wings" I can actually remember seeing most of them the first time they appeared!