Re: Using Logos in Wikipedia Articles without pemission

"CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property" <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org> on Thursday, September 28, 2006 at 2:00 PM -0800 wrote:
>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."

It's my understanding that informational (or “editorial”) uses of a trademark do not require permission. These are uses that inform, educate or express opinions protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (protecting freedom of speech and of the press). For example, permission is not required to use the Chevrolet logo in an article describing Chevrolet trucks, even if the article is critical of the company. This isn't to say that a company won't hassle you for such uses, but the editorial user should eventually prevail in this type of dispute.
If the trademark contains some copyrightable element, however, things may get a little more complicated -- as is often the case with trademarked characters. In that case, the user must review the use under copyright fair use principles and proceed accordingly. Finally, the term "fair use" has different meanings in trademark and copyright law. In copyright law, fair use is invoked as a defense to infringement. The defendant claims that the unauthorized use of material is for purposes of commentary or some other transformative use. Trademark "fair use" is also a defense to a claim of infringement but it is invoked when a business has used a trademarked term for a descriptive purpose, for example a dishwashing company claims that its use of advertising copy -- "the joy of clean dishes" -- does not infringe the trademark for Joy dishwashing soap. Noncommercial uses of trademarks such as comparative advertising, parodies and journalistic and informational accounts are sometimes improperly lumped in the trademark "fair use" category. I'm interested to hear other opinions regarding informational uses of trademarks.
Rich Stim
Nolo Received on Sat Sep 30 2006 - 02:02:16 GMT