On 5/2/06, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
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.
This is what is done on Dewiki.
It sounds good at first blush, but it's somewhat bogus from a legal perspective... Just like bringing a camcorder into a movie theater doesn't create a free movie, nor does aiming a still camera at a copyrighted graphic create a truly free illustration.
The same argument can be applied many of the 'free' illustrations in dewiki which are fair use in enwiki, from microsoft logos to pokemon dolls. Jamesday made this argument to me about a year ago, and it is what convinced me that fair use images have place in a free encyclopedia. ... or rather, that we have no choice but to include at least some legally complex material if we wish to be complete.
Not that the dewiki approach doesn't have any merit: a copyright holder would look rather foolish in court trying to control your distribution of a photograph an editor took from public property of a sign outside their facilities... And in parts of the world without the equivalent of fair use, this might be the only defense you have for using their copyrighted artwork.