Wikipedia talk:Logos/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of previous logo of an organization

An organization changes its name and its logo. Does the previous logo still fall under Fair Use? I found this discussion, which points here which got me confused. I'm sorry if I'm raising an old question, but I rather be certain and I can't find policy about it. Case in question: File:WSF-logo.jpg --Muhandes (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no automatic entitlement for it. It may fall under fair use if it is particularly important (for instance, if there is discussion of the previous logo in the article) but usually, it will not. J Milburn (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wonder if my opinion is logical. Here it is: In my humble opinion, the old logo is still the property of the organization that held the license to it; hence it is still protected by copyright laws; therefore it is still fair use.

You see, I think it is analogous to this: Person A buys a new dress. She does not use her old dress. But if Person B use Person A's dress without prior permission, Person B is to be treated the way she would have been treated when Person A used the dress.

I think the facts do not change: Dress or logo (or any other property), used or not, are still the properties of their respective owners. Their use by a third person is always subject to the same set of laws. Fleet Command (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Erm, yes, that's correct. Not really seeing what that has to do with anything? No one is suggesting different laws apply? J Milburn (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Muhandes and FleetCommand are talking about different things. Muhandes wanted to know if an old logo could still be used under fair use, or if it would no longer qualify, but FleetCommand is saying that it wouldn't fall into the public domain. In other words, Muhandes was wondering "fair use or not usable at all?" but Fleet Command answered the question "fair use or free?" Powers ^T 13:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyhoo, I find myself agreeing with J Milburn. The blanket allowance we give for logos is that it's a visual identity for an entity. If the logo has been replaced, then it clearly doesn't identify the entity any more. There needs to be a sourced discussion of the logo to meet WP:NFCC#8. --Mosmof (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't a logo still identify the entity to regular or historical customers/users/audience of an entity, especially soon after a logo change? For example, if I see an old Pepsi logo, I still identify it with the brand even if it isn't the current logo. —GreenwoodKL ^{(t, c)} 17:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. Think of it this way - I might identify with Sean Connery in his role as Agent 007. But what he really looks like is an old, bearded, white-haired Scot. What I or any other reader thinks of him visually is irrelevant. Then I again, I think the blanket "allow logos of corporations because they identify the entity" fails the spirit of fair use, so take my opinion however you will. Mosmof (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not the whole equation though, Mosmof. The other side of the balance is to consider how great is the copyright taking that the use here represents. Because the logo is already so widespread, indeed it has been produced for the express purpose of providing as readily identifiable and widespread an image as possible to identify with the entity, we consider the copyright taking that is represented by our use of it here to be minimal. Because of that, we can be readier to use logos than for example most other forms of copyrighted image content. Jheald (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The question (inevitably) is how much of value the historic logo is considered to add to reader understanding. If the logo was used by the company for a long time, had wide recognition, and if the evolving corporate image of the company is something the article considers significant and worth presenting, those factors might all be held to justify a (relatively limited) copyright taking. There are certainly articles that do show historic logos, on those grounds. But it needs to feel appropriate, not just gratuitous. Jheald (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Jheald, you are simply wrong that "we can be readier to use logos than for example most other forms of copyrighted image content". Non-free content is non-free content, all use of non-free content must meet our non-free content criteria. This page is very clear about that. J Milburn (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the key test is NFCC #8. But as WP:NFCI makes clear, what we regard as sufficiently significant to pass NFCC #8 varies according to the degree of the copyright taking. You can't judge the value in a vacuum, you have to judge the value against the taking. That's what happens in a court of law, that's what NFCC #8 was instituted to reflect, and that's what our guidelines confirm. It's basically common sense. Jheald (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not a court of law, and NFCI is merely a list of suggestions. Again, all non-free content must meet our non-free content criteria- the bar is not lower for some classes of images. J Milburn (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The question isn't whether or not content must meet our NFC criteria. It is plainly the case that it must.

Rather, the point is the way the NFC criteria are assessed. And that's what NFCI is there to shed light on. If you look at the editing history to see where the criteria text originally came from, you'll find it was created so that policy should more closely track the legal position - which makes just this balance. And essentially, as a rule of thumb, the line can be summarised as what a commercial reuser could legally claim fair-use for, that unlike the WMF wasn't a not-for-profit educational charity. So, when we come to judge how significant an image must be to pass NFCC #8, we try to think as a court would: is it significant enough that a court would consider the copyright taking justifiable.

We want to add to our reader understanding; but we don't want to make an inappropriate copyright taking (or, perhaps as importantly, one that would be seen as inappropriate). Hence the balance; which as WP:NFCI indicates, falls out differently for different classes of images. Jheald (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You're just making a blind assertion here. The rules are the same for all types of images. Yes, some types of images we have to be particularly careful of using for commercial reasons- that's the point of NFCC#2. However, you will note that NFCC#8 is the same for every type of non-free image. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter what that guideline says or why you feel it was put there. That guideline is always completely second to our NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And the test for prime numbers is the same whether a number is odd or even. But an even number is rather less likely to pass it. The same test can have different consequences for different categories of input.

On the wider philosophical point, when looking to interpret policy text, it is useful to consider (i) specific guidance on it, (ii) current operational practice, (iii) what is trying to be achieved (cf WP:IAR), (iv) why the wording was brought in in the first place.

The wording of NFCC #8 is clear: an image must make a significant contribution. But what is a significant contribution? What determines how significant it must be? A. Look to (i) to (iv) above, as I have: one that is sufficiently significant to justify the copyright taking. Jheald (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the image must make a significant contribution. That's not "a very significant contribution for types of images Jheald doesn't like" and "a minor contribution for types of images Jheald does like". The prime number analogy doesn't support what you're saying at all- we apply the same rule to all numbers, but, once that rule has been applied, we find some types of number are more likely to meet that rule. Same rule. As for your respective points- i) The specific guidance on logos (this page) makes it perfectly clear that logos have to meet the NFCC- the same fricking NFCC as anything else, ii) the "current practice" is frequently wrong, but the current practice is most certainly not that logos are more legitimate than anything else, iii) we are trying to minimise the amount of non-free content we use while still providing a service to the reader (consistent with not including whatever Jheald fancies including) and iv) has the same answer as iii. This argument is pointless- the same NFCC apply no matter what category you care to place the image in, and no amount of sophistry is going to change that. On Wikipedia, this really is black and white- there are free images, and there are non-free images. Simple. J Milburn (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Logos produced by the U.S. Government

The claim "as works of the federal government, they are automatically in the public domain" is not referenced. Is this an assumption or is there a reference which can back this up. I'm thinking specific of the NASA insignia which is one of the few images that NASA actually has any regulation around. Other agencies have restrictions on their logo/insignia usage as well, mostly to control misrepresentation of the agency. NASA extends its restrictions to cover souvenirs and other commercial items as well due to the popularity of the insignia. Where did this statement that US government insignias are public domain come from?--RadioFan (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code, as cited at Wikimedia Commons. Feel free to verify that, as I haven't read the statute myself. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 says: "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." Is the lack of copyright protection the same as being in the public domain?--RadioFan (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If something is not protected by copyright, it is in the public domain. J Milburn (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The lack of copyright does not mean there is no trademark protection. For that matter, Congress could pass a unique law protecting a particular logo. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

While appears to be the case with NASA logos. This general permission does not extend to use of the NASA insignia logo (the blue "meatball" insignia), the retired NASA logotype (the red "worm" logo) and the NASA seal. These images may not be used by persons who are not NASA employees or on products (including Web pages) that are not NASA-sponsored.--RadioFan (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Those webstatements are rather pointless though. What counts here is the law. For the NASA logo/insignia that would be Title 14 cfr part 1221, with violations punishable by Title 18 U.S.C. 1017 for the seal and punishable by Title 18 U.S.C. 701 for other insignia, flags, program identifiers etc. The foundation has once stated that we (as community) will only have to concern ourselves with copyright when it comes to image usage. This is because as an encyclopedia/educational(/partly journalistic) work, the work has some freedoms that go a lot further than the freedoms of a commercial user or a user that would have intent to deceive. Also note that there is a big difference between what is an APPROVED usage and that which is a punishable usage. The federal code has usually been interpreted as requiring some intent to deceive in order to be punishable. While the line for what is approved is explicitly strict, the line for what is punishable has explicitly been left a tad vague. Basically only a court of law will be able to define such borderline cases exactly. In a court of law, it would probably go between a law to protect a seal, and the basic freedom of speech of a work like this encyclopedia of the commons. Based on the wide provisions and leeway there already is for copyrighted material in the educational and journalistic world, it is not a stretch to believe that similar limits would be taken into account when weighing "unapproved usage of government seals" against the freedom of speech. The better question is always, do you want to be the first person to end up in court trying to find the borderline between the two. :D —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Replacing logos with storefonts

Should non-free fair-use logos be deleted from Wikipedia when a free panorama image of a storefront is available? This seems to be the rationale of a recent FfD request. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It depends. This issue should be assessed in a case-by-case basis. The rule of thumb is: Non-free logo in a free image is still non-free! (Actually, such an image may have been mis-licensed in the first place and have never been eligible for a free license!)

Perhaps the main concern in this regard is whether these two types of image (logo and storefront) may co-exist in an article. Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy mandates that if one of them can replace the role of the other, then only one can exist. Hence, if the photo of storefront can fulfill the purpose, then only the storefront photo should be placed in the article. However, I can think of a lot situation in which such an image cannot fill the role of logo itself alone. For example, if the default view is so wide that the logo may be lost in it, or if the lighting condition alter the look of logo, then that panorama image may not be used.

Fleet Command (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, no. It completely depends on the context and location. If I take a picture at a football game and one of the players is wearing a jersey with a logo on it, the concept of de minimus applies and the photo is still non-free as the logo is a very small portion of the image. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Burger King#Front logo for some relevant discussion involving some bold edits to remove logos. Powers ^T 21:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Substantive change to the Guideline

Per the header, "...Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus", I have reverted Zip's edit until consensus is reached. As this guideline can have an effect concerning content across the encyclopedia, careful consideration should be given before allowing any changes that might guide editors to making content decisions that are not in line with the complex issues concerning "...copyright, trademark and editorial concerns". I advise caution before making any changes that will relax the Guideline concerning when and where logos can be used. 184.199.236.20 (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This information/justification is already used across thousands of images through the template explicitly mentioned on the page. There is no reason to suppress this information already within consensus. No one needs permission to make appropriate changes to policy/guideline pages. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem to me is that it's so poorly worded that I have no clue what you are trying to say. The major change argument isn't the issue to me, but I fail to get the whole geometric shapes in a larger work ar not copyrightable thing. It just doesn't make sense. Some clarification over what you are trying to say?--Terrillja _talk 21:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If you make a red circle it isn't copyrightable. If you make 2 circles and make them overlap, it still isn't copyrightable. If you make 3 circles..4,5,10,20, etc. But at some point, those circles form another shape (like a dinosaur), then you aren't using those circles as circles, but instead as components to form a larger image. The same goes for text. If you use text as text for a logo, it cannot attain copyrightable status. If you use those characters to convey an idea (such as in a book or article), then you can copyright them. Likewise, if you can use those letters to form something other than letters, they too can attain copyright.

Perhaps some assistance on phrasing is in order? The basic concept is already mentioned in the tag mentioned on the page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Rephrased. Feel free to change if you feel I'm in error. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The "Uploading non-free logos" does not actually say how to upload

Ok, so great to know that it is alright to upload a non-free logo. All the logos must have gotten on company wikipedia entries somehow. This section is missing information on what form to use to upload a non-free logo. It is entirely unclear how to properly upload a non-free logo, and what template to use. This needs to be clarified. --Nhtahoe (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Bizarre wiki bug

For some reason, under "Editorial concerns" the first subsection heading, "Advertisements", doesn't display, even though the section is shown in the Table of Contents at the top of the page. I've found through experimentation that naming a section or subsection "Advertisement" or "Advertisements" triggers this bug. Until the bug is fixed, I've temporarily renamed the section "A d v e r t i s e m e n t s", which looks weird, but allows readable text to display in the section heading. — Quicksilver^{T @} 04:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't seem to have that issue with either my iPad or Firefox. Buffs (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If you can't see this, AdBlock is probably blocking it. See https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/33297 for more details. -- ☠MarkAHershberger☢(talk)☣ 19:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That's what it was. I'm running Adblock Plus on SeaMonkey, and since Wikipedia doesn't display ads, it never occurred to me that the plugin would be trying to block anything on Wikipedia, even though I've been editing for over 6 years. Easy fix. I'll just disable Adblock Plus permanently for all wikipedia.org pages. — Quicksilver^{T @} 04:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Company this, company that

This revert is problematic. This policy really has jack all to do with "companies" per se, it's about trademarks, which adhere to corporations, partnerships, NGOs, products, services, etc., etc. The wording is badly flawed. Bashing me in edit summaries for suggesting that people who don't have IP legal experience shouldn't be editing IP legal pages here is cute, but does not get around the fact. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 22:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

When you try to big yourself up, I think you can expect to be told to shut up. If you want respect, earn it, don't tell us all how you should have it. Anyway; this guideline is more about non-free content policies than it is about trademarks. I admit, the trademark section is probably not all that well written (and I had no part in writing it), but that's because it's secondary to the copyright issue. Wikipedia has no central policies on trademark, but it certainly does on copyright- as such, I'm not really too fussed about trademarks- I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not going to pretend to be one. What I do not want is this page implying that it can somehow supersede the NFCC- when you start making blanket statements about how all these logos are permitted seems to do. J Milburn (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Animated logos?

Are there any guidelines regarding animated logos? I just discovered Gerstlauer, which uses File:Logo-Weiß(Animiert).gif. I don't think I've seen a company infobox with an animated logo before. Trivialist (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

neither-nor and not

The following sentence from the guideline has a double negative, so it needs correcting, but I'm not sure of the intent, so, if you know, please edit it: "Neither non-free nor trademarked logos (see discussion) should not generally be used as icons within an article's Infobox." The word "not" creates the double negative. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

proposing to add logo accessibility to guideline

Visually-impaired users depend on Wikipedia's accessibility. To that end, I propose to add the following to the end of the section Editorial Concerns:

=== Accessibility ===

Visually-impaired users, like most users, may want to know what a logo looks like. It needs to be accessible, but in most cases of non-free use it must be in the infobox although the infobox is inaccessible to visually-impaired users. A prose description is therefore appropriate. That would normally be by adding an alt text, but that would not work in an infobox. Instead, add the prose description to the body of the article. Since the logo is a primary source and logos are rarely described in secondary sources, in a Wikipedia article a logo may be described directly from the logo, preferably prudently understated.

Comments?

Nick Levinson (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Done, with a clarification on prudence. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I would like to challenge the wording "it must be in the infobox". It may be used in the info box, but logos are to be treated as portraits and there is no indication that the info box is a requirement for use in this policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I've now edited the provision. In the past, I may have read the guideline as giving permission limited to use in an infobox (because it gave permission for one place and was silent about anywhere else and without permission we can't use it at all), but the {{Non-free use rationale logo}} template contemplates use elsewhere, like in sections. Looking now, I don't see an explicit requirement barring use outside of an infobox, so either a requirement somewhere was deleted or I may have erred by misunderstanding permssion to use to be more restrictive than it is. I tend to be legally cautious.

Technically, the proposed wording ("but in most cases of non-free use the info box is inaccessible to visually-impaired users") implies that inaccessibility depends on whether the image is non-free and that not all such images cause that problem. Inaccessibility being about technology being able to render the content for the user with a visual impairment, the image's legal status is irrelevant and I don't know of any image to which inaccessibility would not apply.

If the rewording does not work, edit or post. I'm considering moving the location instruction ("in the infobox") out of its present section, since that is not where we would look for it, but not changing that wording, leaving that to other editors; and that move would not affect the accessibility discussion.

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC) (Corrected punctuation: 17:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC))

Thank you. That seems to read fine. I tend to agree with your consideration to move that mention out of that section. Eventually I think the wording there should be discussed at length by the community, but I don't think it need happen right away.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

icon as misunderstood

I'd like to reword the guideline's mentions of logos as icons. I think of icons as pictures used in controlling what computers do, some of which are industry-standard pictures, such as the circle with a line that labels a power switch, and many of them probably are not trademarked or are protected under a claim-and-release procedure that allows free use within Wikipedia's terms. But, after reading the discussion linked to in the guideline, it seems quite a few editors do think of what the guideline is talking about as icons. I'd rather call them secondary logos. So, if a university has a nonfree logo for the university and another for a sports team run by the university, in an article about the university the sports team nonfree logo would be a secondary logo and probably not be displayed and in an article about the team the team nonfree logo would be main and probably would be displayed and the university's nonfree logo would be secondary and probably not displayed. Wikipedia articles probably should display only the main nonfree logos for their subjects (thus one nonfree logo per article). Is it okay to replace "icon"? Nick Levinson (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I have some concerns. First, could you elaborate on the "Thus one nonfree image per article"? Is that a requirement?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As you know I have concerns about the use of company and team logos. If the consensus isthat icon refers to a secondary non free image , I would say it should NOT be in the info box either as a small icon or other image. One non free image in the info box for minimal use, but there is no reason a second non free company or team logo cannot be used in the body of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that I missed your replies till now.

"Thus one nonfree image per article" is generally a maximum, not a minimum.

In the guideline, the word icon is only used three times and two are appropriately used and within a template being displayed as an illustration. The only other use is apparently extraneous, so I'm deleting it, as I don't think, from your replies, that you disagree (if you do, edit freely).

I'll also clarify the subsection generally.

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Logo

Hello. How do I save this logo to add it to an article on the organization, and is that OK? Thank you very much for your help. http://www.icmec.org/en_X1/missingkids_logo/homeHeaderLogo.gif Spring1452 (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Logos and trademarks of defunct organisations

How does the fact that the logo or trademark owner no longer exists affect its use here on WP? Roger (talk) 08:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

In the U.S., presumptively not at all. The owner could have sold the rights and if they went out of business someone else may own those rights. If the trademark itself is no longer in use, regardless of the owner's status, it may be free for anyone to use, but for precisely that reason owners often continue using the mark but slyly. They might take a nationally-known mark and then, when retiring it, paint it onto the sides of two barns in rural counties a thousand miles apart and most of us would never know that. I'm not a lawyer but if a mark wasn't usable before assume it's still not usable unless you see an affirmative release of some kind. If copyright is the only issue, assume the rights were sold or transferred; even if copyrighted work is not in use, rights survive. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Nick is correct. Assets of failed companies are often sold, including intellectual property rights.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion that is open to those who edit here at WP:LOGO

I am directing everyone who likens to this Wikipedia guideline to this discussion. Your input is greatly appreciated. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Non-free logo

Before any edits are made, input from other editors would be appreciated at Template talk:Non-free logo#Category code. (Notification has been posted also at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content.) Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Logos/Archive 6#Use of previous logo of an organization

@J Milburn: What was the conclusion of the discussion? Didn’t seem that clear. Are former logos okay/not okay? Or is it on a case to case basis? Can you please make it clear? If that’s possible.Jonteemil (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: I don't remember that particular discussion, but some general advice: Any use of a non-free logo has to meet the NFCC. If a logo is freely licensed for some reason, it can be used as much as you like. We generally accept that a single logo image (i.e., the current logo) meets the NFCC on a page about an organisation. Sometimes previous logos will, too, but there's no presumption in favour of their use. If in doubt, don't use. The question should always be "How little non-free content can I get away with?" and not "How much non-free content can I get away with?" Josh Milburn (talk) 08:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@J Milburn: So it’s on a case to case basis. Thanks!Jonteemil (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Rephrasing accessibility

@RexxS: Pinging RexxS as my go-to for alt text, but anyone can contribute to the discussion. The alt text section, added in 2012, needs clarification in my opinion.

The sentence Because an alt text would not work in an infobox, add the prose description to the body of the article. is unclear to me, is there a history of alt text not functioning in the infobox that has now been fixed? Or is this saying that describing the logo's description in alt text in the infobox is not appropriate because of its location in the article? I could comment more, but I guess I am looking to see if there is history that I am missing or if this should be reworded at all. Kees08 (Talk) 20:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kees08: that sentence was added by a rephrasing of the guidance in 2013, which was based on a 2012 edit. It mistakenly suggests that infoboxes are not accessible to the visually impaired. That may be due to problems where the image didn't have an alt parameter coded in many early infoboxes. All infoboxes that I'm aware of now implement an alt parameter for the image, and I'm always willing to add that parameter if anybody finds an infobox without that functionality.

Please update the guidance. My thoughts are that the alt text for a text logo like 'Xyz' could be as simple as alt=logo: Xyz. If the logo is a complex graphic or particularly stylised text and needs considerable description, then that should be undertaken in the body of the text, when an alt text like alt=logo: see description in such-and-such section would be appropriate. But always remember to read the alt text in conjunction with the caption. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Still thinking of the best way to update the guidance, I think including examples might help. I would like to clarify my understanding of the different scenarios.

• If the logo is used in the infobox or lede, and a section describing the logo exists, the alt could be see description in logo design section.
  • Is there any way to link to the section better for screen readers so they have the option to go there directly? Ironically I went to make the example at Coca-Cola, but it does not have a parameter for image alt text or logo alt text. It is a bit late but I will add it at a later date unless you get to it first. (side note, I know that the Coca-Cola image is free, but I thought it was prudent to use free files for our examples, as the alt text should be the same)
• If the logo is used in the infobox or lede, and there is no section on logo design, the alt text of Logo of Xyz would be appropriate.
• If the logo is in the logo design prose section, an alt of Logo of Xyz would be appropriate
• If the logo is not in the infobox, lede, or logo design sections, its inclusion on Wikipedia should be reconsidered.

I think well in flow charts, in case you do too, I created one, File:Logo Alt Text Flowchart.png. I can work on the specific verbage after I verify that my understanding of generating alt text for logos is correct. Sorry that this is all over the place, had to fix the garden beds today, darn squirrels dug them up again! I put up a 'no squirrel trespassing' sign, so that should prevent them in the future. Kees08 (Talk) 07:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kees08: I got to the {{Infobox drink}} and Coca-Cola pages. I think you have encapsulated most of my musings above in that flow chart. The only bit that I didn't mention is when there is no section and the logo is more complex than just text, but not so complex that you can't succinctly describe it in an alt text. In that case you write a concise description as the alt text. I don't think I can work out how to make a link from within alt text because the wiki-parser treats alt text as plain text, not wiki-markup. A user hearing see "Logo design" section can quickly call up a list of section names and go to that section if they are interested.

If you find time to collect examples, that would be wonderful. Folks acquire the skills of writing alt text best by doing it, and copying and adapting good examples eases that process. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hosting legality

Question, many images hosted on Wikimedia and used in Wikipedia articles assert they are free of Copyright as Copyright isnt applicable in the Unites States, however Wiki is also hosted in the Netherlands and Singapore. As the country the servers are located in defines the applicable legal jurisdiction a blanket US legal disclaimer for Fair Use cannot be applied? WatcherZero (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Reference to the year 1923 replaced

I recently edited the article to replace an instance of the year 1923 with the template {{Not-PD-US-expired-min-year}}. This change should make the page more accurate. I copied the {{Not-PD-US-expired-min-year}} template from the article Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights; however, my understanding is that the {{Not-PD-US-expired-min-year}} reference itself is not copyrighted so there should not be an issue there. --Elegie (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)