On 5/2/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
When each project has very limited fair use,
pictures like logos or
screenshots should not be an issue, Gerard. As
I've argued before,
there are going to be very, very few cases where
a
company will agree
to license their logo under something like CC-ND.
Imagine such a
proposal being sent to Nike. "Dear Nike,
we'd like
to use your logo,
could you please license it under Creative
Commons
No-Derivatives"?
Corporate lawyers are all about risk
minimization;
seeing no benefit
in such an arrangement, most of them would flat
our reject the idea, I
think.
The benefit would be that they get their logo in the
Wikipedia article
on Nike. For logos, though, companies would
probably insist on some
sort of "educational use only" restriction. CC-ND
is just an example.
Of course, they'd only get that benefit if Wikipedia
decided not to
use their image if they didn't give permission. So
there'd be a risk
there, but personally I don't think the Nike article
would be any
worse without a picture of that swoosh.
The use of CC-ND for logos would actually be
dangerous as it could
prevent us from looking for a better solution.
How would it do that? And what better solution is
available now?
Couldn't someone just take a photograph of a sign
outside a company's headquarters? I don't see why we
have to show the exact graphic of the logo, when we
can show it used in context and under GFDL. I have
not followed this issue before so forgive me if this
has already been throughly discussed.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around