Template talk:User Tulane
No Fair Use claim is made[edit]
Note to those enforcing the restriction on Fair Use images on User Pages: No Fair Use claim is needed for the use of Tulane's shield in the User:Tulane userbox. Explicit permission from Tulane's Vice-President of University Communications has been granted to use this shield, accompanied by a Trade Mark symbol (™) on Wikipedia user pages.
- This may be true, but it is a violation of the first point of Wikipedia's fair-use policy. This policy applies to all images which are not in the public domain or freely licensed, even if we supposedly get "permission" to use them on Wikipedia. Unless the image has actually been released under a free license, it is considered unlicensed and used only under a claim of fair use on Wikipedia. —Bkell (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Reference[edit]
- Private communication with User:Dystopos, see User:Dystopos/Tulane Shield.
Wikipedia policy with regard to non-free images in templates[edit]
Dystopos, I feel the need to explain why I keep removing the image from this template.
On Wikipedia there are exactly three categories of images: public-domain images (to which no one can claim copyright), freely licensed images (where the copyright holder has agreed to release the image under a free license that allows anyone to use the image for any purpose), and images used under a claim of fair use. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, these are the only three possibilities for the copyright status of an image on Wikipedia (apart from unacceptable copyright situations that are not allowed on Wikipedia at all). See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/All for a list of copyright tags: sections 1, 2, and 4 cover free licenses, public domain, and fair use, respectively; section 3 is for works of the United States federal government, a special case of public-domain images; and the last two sections are unacceptable tags.
So, which category does Image:Tulane shield web.jpg fall under? Clearly it's not in the public domain, because Tulane University is claiming copyright. It is also clear that it has not been released under a free license for anyone to use for any purpose. Therefore, in the eyes of Wikipedia, this image can be used only under a claim of fair use. It is irrelevant whether someone at Tulane has offered to give permission for Wikipedia-only usage in some way; Wikipedia rejects these kinds of offers. Wikipedia only honors free licenses; any other kind of permission is not valid on Wikipedia, and the image can be used only under a fair-use claim. For details about this policy, see Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Licenses and Wikipedia:Image copyright issues for dummies#Wikipedia policies ["Similarly the GFDL license permit anyone to re-use our content, for this reason content that only Wikipedia itself have permission to use may (ironically enough) not be used"].
Hence, it is irrelevant whether someone at Tulane has given permission for this image to be used in some very specific way on Wikipedia only. Wikipedia rejects this license. If it's not available under a totally free license, Wikipedia considers it to be usable only under a claim of fair use.
Now, we examine the Wikipedia fair-use policy, specifically point #9, which reads, "Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace. … They should never be used on templates … or on user pages."
Consequently, we have arrived at the following conclusion: Since this image is not in the public domain, and it is not available under a free license, it is usable on Wikipedia only under a claim of fair use. Since it is used here under a claim of fair use, it may not be used on a template. This is the reason I keep deleting this image from this template. —Bkell (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Tulane box[edit]
- Moved here from my talk page ~ trialsanderrors 18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The Tulane seal is not protected by copyright. It is a trade mark. See Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems for some context. I have personally given up defending its use here after wasting my time with numerous ill-informed removals as Wikipedians endeavor to err on the side of paranoia... but I would like to clarify that point. --Dystopos 15:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was gonna point out what's wrong with these assumptions, but it looks like Bkell has already done it on the template talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 17:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- The continuation of my conversation with Bkell, including the reference to "erring", is on his talk page: User_talk:Bkell#Tulane_web_shield. --Dystopos 17:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- First, your reading of Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems is wrong. The Tulane shield is not defined by a blazon, it's a design, and as such it is copyrightable as creative work, and Tulane clearly imposes usage restrictions that are incommensurate with trademark-only protection. The most obvious is the no alteration restriction, another one is the restriction on use outside of academic purposes (see [1]). Neither can be enforced by trademark, those are copyright restrictions. In our definition, this is not a free license since free licenses require the unrestricted right to alter the image and use it for any commercial purpose. In other words, we use the image under fair use, and as such it's not allowed in user space. This has nothing to do with paranoia, it's against our stated goals to make unnecessary use of fair use images. And using fair use images in user space is never, never a necessary use. ~ trialsanderrors 18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Once again, the use proposed for Wikipedia user boxes is only considered "fair use" because Wikipedia guidelines choose to treat it as such. Tulane is absolutely free to give permission, as they have, for the use specified. However, Wikipedia chooses, by internal policy, to err on the side of caution. That is what I have been saying, and the recognition of that is why I have given up trying to put the shield back onto the user box and instead waste my time correcting misconceptions by yabbering all over talk space. Furthermore, I do maintain that the design of the shield can be described as a blazon and that the specific emblazon which the University uses is not a copyrighted design. Though the university has chosen to restrict its use, they do so under their own policies and not under copyright law. Wikipedia is not subject to Tulane's policies except as they are enforcable by law and the relevant legal realm is Trade Mark. --Dystopos 19:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but what Wikipedia defines to be the actionable guideline will be enforced on Wikipedia. The rest of your post is pretty much nonsense. ~ trialsanderrors 19:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Your inability to understand my post may be because you commingle Wikipedia's current policy on "non-free content" and the terms of copyright. Those are not the same and my objection is to confusing the issue with claims that the shield was posted under fair use or in violation of copyright. It was not. At the time that it was first used, the policy you quote made explicit reference to copyrighted works. Now that the language used in the policy has been modified to extend protection to non-copyrighted works which do not meet the positive defintion of free content drafted by Erik Möller, the proposed use is no longer permitted by Wikipedia. I will abide by the internal policy. I will also try to make the distinctions clear. --Dystopos 20:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I perfectly understand your post. You have no understanding of the distinction between trademark and copyright, as your assertion above that the "Tulane seal is not protected by copyright. It is a trade mark" shows. The usage restrictions Tulane imposes cannot be made under trademark protection. Tulane clearly asserts copyright for its logo. Hence, it falls under "no free license" in Wikiworld. ~ trialsanderrors 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Your inability to understand my post may be because you commingle Wikipedia's current policy on "non-free content" and the terms of copyright. Those are not the same and my objection is to confusing the issue with claims that the shield was posted under fair use or in violation of copyright. It was not. At the time that it was first used, the policy you quote made explicit reference to copyrighted works. Now that the language used in the policy has been modified to extend protection to non-copyrighted works which do not meet the positive defintion of free content drafted by Erik Möller, the proposed use is no longer permitted by Wikipedia. I will abide by the internal policy. I will also try to make the distinctions clear. --Dystopos 20:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but what Wikipedia defines to be the actionable guideline will be enforced on Wikipedia. The rest of your post is pretty much nonsense. ~ trialsanderrors 19:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Once again, the use proposed for Wikipedia user boxes is only considered "fair use" because Wikipedia guidelines choose to treat it as such. Tulane is absolutely free to give permission, as they have, for the use specified. However, Wikipedia chooses, by internal policy, to err on the side of caution. That is what I have been saying, and the recognition of that is why I have given up trying to put the shield back onto the user box and instead waste my time correcting misconceptions by yabbering all over talk space. Furthermore, I do maintain that the design of the shield can be described as a blazon and that the specific emblazon which the University uses is not a copyrighted design. Though the university has chosen to restrict its use, they do so under their own policies and not under copyright law. Wikipedia is not subject to Tulane's policies except as they are enforcable by law and the relevant legal realm is Trade Mark. --Dystopos 19:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- First, your reading of Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems is wrong. The Tulane shield is not defined by a blazon, it's a design, and as such it is copyrightable as creative work, and Tulane clearly imposes usage restrictions that are incommensurate with trademark-only protection. The most obvious is the no alteration restriction, another one is the restriction on use outside of academic purposes (see [1]). Neither can be enforced by trademark, those are copyright restrictions. In our definition, this is not a free license since free licenses require the unrestricted right to alter the image and use it for any commercial purpose. In other words, we use the image under fair use, and as such it's not allowed in user space. This has nothing to do with paranoia, it's against our stated goals to make unnecessary use of fair use images. And using fair use images in user space is never, never a necessary use. ~ trialsanderrors 18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- You said, "The usage restrictions Tulane imposes cannot be made under trademark protection." That is correct. Tulane can not, and does not, claim copyright protection on the design. They claim trade mark protection against its use in commerce and restrict their own employees and affiliates with regard to its appearance. --Dystopos 21:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- The continuation of my conversation with Bkell, including the reference to "erring", is on his talk page: User_talk:Bkell#Tulane_web_shield. --Dystopos 17:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)