This template was considered for deletion on 2018 December 13. The result of the discussion was "keep".
The language on this template differs somewhat from the language used at commons:Template:Trademarked. Shouldn't they be similar? —RP88 06:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On my screen, the the top half of the ® doesn't appear. Am I the only one? nadav 22:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the quirky world of Internet Explorer. I found a fix for that issue, and it should work now. —Remember the dot(talk) 23:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a puzzling statement in the middle of the template: These restrictions make such symbols non-free according to the Definition of Free Cultural Works as adopted by the Wikimedia Foundation.
Neither the definition nor the board resolution make explicit reference to trademarks, so it is left to the reader to infer what is meant. Such works, which would be otherwise be free if not for local trademark laws, have, up to now, been accepted, as long as the use is appropriate for the relevant jurisdiction. The NFC criteria don't address otherwise free trademarks, only {{non-free logo}}s. This confuses me, and, it seems,[1] other editors.
So, why the change? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 02:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it because I think I'm correctly interpreting the resolution of the Foundation. Indeed en.wikipedia has never had such restrictions apply and some will say we still don't. The problem however is that there is a lack of guidance on this by the Foundation. As interpreted literally, as far as I can infer, trademarks and other restricted non-copyrighted materials are "non-free" because they do not satisfy rule #1 of the Definition of Free Cultural Works: "freedom to use". Apparently we were making an exception for "trademarks". However in the way the current foundation resolution applies, such exceptions are only possible if defined in the "Exemption Doctrine Policy". They are not and as such the image falls in some sort of black hole of ambiguity. The same goes for insignia (flags and other national symbols). Basically, there is not much different here between saying images with trademarks are "non-free" or "free" and these definitions have nothing to do with their copyright status. Non-free is more appropriate since there are usage restrictions. Since you are not allowed to use the images arbitrarily, I think we should have some sort of "usage rationale" for each use if we are to follow the lines set out by the Foundation. (And yes, I am forcing the issue a bit, but that's usually how things get fixed). Ergo the changes are as much an "Appeal to authority" as your question :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we necessarily need a specific written rationale for each usage, as long as an image is used in accordance with the applicable laws, so reducing the risk for the contributor, the project, and its re-users.
It is not entirely clear to me what the Foundation board meant, nor what the Free Cultural Works definition means, when it comes to the myriad of non-copyright restrictions that can apply to cultural works (such as personality rights, slander and libel, flags and heraldry, currency, moral rights, trademark, patent, unfair competition ...). As far as I can tell from first reading, the definition was intended to address copyright licensing and expiration, and not these other legal doctrines, but I am willing to be persuaded otherwise. (I don't read the mailing lists so I may have missed key background to the resolution.)
In the meantime, our templates and policies should address the laws as they apply, rather than make appeals to a Board resolution whose interpretation may be challenged by inclusionist editors, so tying us up in endless debate. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should not use this image as a logo for your computer company. Neither should you use it to sell records. This seems to have become something of a forest fire: I see related discussions at least here, at the Village Pump, at WT:NFC and at the Doctor Who WikiProject. There may be others I've missed. In fact, I suspect the place this really should be discussed at would be freedomdefined:Talk:Definition. Anyway, Postdlf made a good point about this at the Pump: any image can violate some trademark in some context: for example, using an image of an apple to sell computers could well be a trademark violation. Thus, it makes no sense to treat trademarks as "other restrictions" in the sense of the Definition of Free Content, since that would essentially mean that free content does not exist, or at least cannot be assumed to remain free. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is now resolved to my personal satisfaction. TheDJ's statement about the board resolution was removed from the template, which has moved back to {{Trademark}}.
The forest fire has died down, after forging a new guideline page at WP:SOSUMI, which documents what was already consensus among the more informed (not me.) Thanks for an informative debate.
Should I add this template in images of materials that have trademarks?[edit]
I must have added {{trademark}} in video game covers and government works that contain logos, such as CECB cards. Should I leave edits ara they are and continue, or should I stop and revert my edits? --George Ho (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please swap out the current template with the one below (the only change is the message about non-free fair use rationales, in small text). There are a number of problems caused by this misunderstanding, and there's no harm in adding the message.
{{imbox
| type = license
| image = [[File:Orange_trademark.svg|52px|alt="R" in a circle]]
| text = This work contains material which may be subject to '''[[trademark]]''' laws in one or more jurisdictions. Before using this content, please ensure that it is used to identify the entity or organization that owns the trademark and that '''you have the right to use it under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use'''. ''You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's trademark.''<br>These restrictions are '''[[:en:WP:SOSUMI|independent of the copyright status]]'''. See also the Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:General disclaimer#Trademarks|trademark disclaimer]] and [[Wikipedia:Logos]].<br><small>Please note that images that are trademarked ''but are not copyrighted'', such as logos that fall under {{tl|PD-textlogo}}, do not need and should not have a [[Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline|non-free use rationale]].</small>
}}{{{category|{{file other| [[Category:Images with trademarks|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}}}<noinclude>
{{Documentation}}
</noinclude>
Go to the edit window and copy everything inbetween the two nowiki tags as is and the template will work. Sven ManguardWha? 12:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Code added to the sandbox. Is this definitely uncontroversial? Given that at least three big free software organisations (Mozilla, GNOME and Debian) have had significant debate about how free content interacts with trademark law, I'm not sure that it can be dismissed so readily. Has this specific point been discussed anywhere? Disabling for now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I consider it uncontroversial because right now Wikipedia isn't having that debate, and because the FUR is specifically for files that are explicitly non-free. If Wikipedia changes its official stance on trademarks, we're going to have to mark them as non-free and give them FURs anyways, but in the meantime having a file with a free copyright template and a FUR gets it listed in both the all free files and the all non-free files megacateogries, which is, while not very harmful to anyone but the statisticians, an avoidable nuisance. Sven ManguardWha? 05:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth including an optional parameter to link to the trademark filing? For example, in the UK, the result of a search at ipo.gov.uk could be included. Similar online facilities exist in France and surely in other countries too. Such use of the tag for files could assist the gathering of further information by researchers using Wikipedia. -- Trevj (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declining, because a better comparison than those templates is our copyright templates, and at least some of them (e.g. {{PD-self}}) use an image that's much more similar to File:Orange trademark.svg. Perhaps you could create a proposal at WP:VP/Pr and try to get all of our templates using one form or another? Nyttend (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Nyttend
Well, I am dumbfounded. I don't know how can you possibly call it a better comparison. In another word, why should you decline an obvious visual improvement simply because other ugly stuff exists? (Or their sheer number?) My answer is: Improve this one, we will improve other stuff in due course.
For the time being, I am calling an RfC on this one.
Comment I think the new image looks rather snazzy, and I would support changing it. I can see that it would be good to have a uniform appearance for all of these icons, but if we're going to choose a particular style I think we should go for the one with shading and shadow. Does anyone know how many other icons there are like this? How difficult would it be to make the full set? — Mr. Stradivarius(have a chat) 14:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I actually inventoried them. There are zillions of icons but our relevant set is very small. The following is our relevant set. (If you don't believe me, of course, you are more than welcome to run these images through Special:WhatLinksHere. It would list a couple of false positive though, until its cache resets.)
Original
Replacement
—
Status
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✗
Items with a green tick mark are already replaced. Items with watch mark have replacement request posted. Item X mark has no replacements yet.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In some districts, it may be unlawful to misrepresent the status of a trademark; while this template is intended to be used on both registered and common law trademarks, it uses an icon symbolizing a registered trademark. For the purposes of clarity (and, additionally, to match the Tango-styled icons we've been using on these templates lately), I would like the image to be replaced with the following, which uses both symbols for neutrality. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Your request would have made sense in Wikimedia Commons but not necessarily here. English Wikipedia adheres to U.S. federal laws and and the laws of Florida, where it is hosted but not the laws of the rest of the world. (Admittedly, the rest of the world cannot touch it.) So, unless Flordia has a law that says this icon should not be used anywhere in the description page associated with the image, I say never mind.
That would be this edit. I've updated the template so that it is in line with Commons, but I've no objection to it being changed to something else should that be judged more suitable. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 12:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done in the interests of consistency. Many thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
