RE: Using Logos in Wikipedia Articles without pemission

From: Webb, Jere <JMWEBB[_at_]stoel.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 18:02:16 -0400

I havent read the material at your links, but if you have not already found Judge Kozinski's opinion for the 9th circuit on whether use of the logo version of a mark is ever fair use, you need to go read it. He says fair use only allows use of the word version of a mark consistent with the rule that fair use requires the minimum use of a mark necessary to get your communication across This would arguably never include logo usage.

Here is the note I dictated when this case was handed down:

Judge Kozinski's opinion in New Kids on the Block v. Gnat Satellite Information Network, 971 F2d 302 (1992), makes it clear that fair use in a situation where defendant is using plaintiff's trademark to describe plaintiff's own product as would be true in comparative advertising, for instance, does not cover use of the logo type version of a mark. See footnote 7 in that opinion to which the court cites the Ninth Circuit's decision in Volkswagenwerk v. Church, 411 F2d 350 (9th Cir 1969), in which the court held that Adida could use the words Volkswagen and VW in advertising its repair services but would not be entitled to use the VW logo. According to Judge Kozinski a defendant in such cases is held to the following standard.
"Only so much of the mark or marks may be used as is reasonably
necessary to identify the product or service."

-----Original Message-----
From: Smith, Robert E. [mailto:smithre[_at_]ctsfw.edu] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 02:01 PM To: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property Subject: [CNI-(C)] Using Logos in Wikipedia Articles without pemission

Dear Friends:

I'm in a -- discussion -- on Wikipedia about the use of the logo of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod without their permission.

The LCMS has posted this statement on their website:

"The logo is the exclusive property of The Lutheran Church-Missouri
Synod and may not be used without its express consent."

My conversation partners argue that it is fair use because Wikipedia engages in non-profit educational activities, that a low resolution version is not substantial and that the image itself is only one of many on the page and that, because it is given away on their website for free, there's not effect on market.

I'm arguing that it certainly is not fair use and the wishes of the copyright holder ought to be respected.

For those interested, the discussion is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lutheran_Church_-_Missouri_Synod#Aspec ts_of_Logo_Use (I'm CTSWyneken on Wikipedia)

And

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Use_of_logos_when_and_ organization_forbids

see also Wikipedia's logo policy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LOGOS

Bob

Rev. Robert E. Smith
Electronic Resources Librarian
Concordia Theological Seminary
Fort Wayne, Indiana
"Translatio traditio est."

• attr. St. Jerome

#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
     the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.

To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org> To resume mail list message delivery from postpone mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-feed[_at_]cni.org>
Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>

Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at <https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>. Received on Sat Sep 30 2006 - 02:02:16 GMT