This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

The standards for use of on copyrighted images Wikipedia are different than the standards for images that are only trademarked.

Is this image copyrighted?

1. Did you take the actual photo (not scanning in a photo you found)? Does it contain something that is copyrighted? (explain freedom of panoramam)
2. Was this image created prior to 1923? If so, use {{ PD-1923}} or {{ PD-1923-abroad}} as appropriate.
3. Is this image the work of a US Federal institution? If so, is it the work of an entity that can claim copyright (i.e. NASA). Make sure you choose the appropriate tag and ensure it meets the criteria listed in XYZXYZ#XYZ
4. Did you scan this image in?
5. Did you find this image on the web?
6. Is this image in the public domain in another country other than the US?
7. big ones to add: European Union, PD-Pre1978, PD-1989, URAA
8. Does the image consist of anything other than letters (no matter how ornate), simple geometric shapes, and/or simple shapes (i.e. arrows)? If not, go to " Is this image trademarked?"
9. Was this image created and published in the United States prior to 1923? If so, its copyright has expired and it is a public domain image.
10. etc.

Is this image trademarked?

Do the letters (no matter how ornate), simple geometric shapes, and/or simple shapes (i.e. arrows) form other artistic figures? Examples: Washington State University logo, ASCII art, a bitmap image. If so, the image is eligible for copyright. If not, the image is not eligible for copyright (explain why)

Copyrighted

See: Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/All#Non-free_content

A copyrighted image should be labeled accordingly. These images must be used in at least one article and every use of the image must have a separate Fair Use Rationale.

Public Domain

See: Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/All#Public_domain

Remember that most images you find on the Web are not public domain, even if they list no explicit copyright information. Images only qualify as being in the public domain if they fall under certain specific categories described below – very old works, works by certain government employees, and works where an explicit disclaimer of copyright has been made in writing by the author.

For a simple chart on US Public Domain regulations (Wikipedia servers are located in the US and fall under US guidelines): http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm.

Generally speaking, copyright is broad. It prohibits sale, use, manipulation, or even copying of someone else's work. One of the narrow exceptions of use is "fair use" – which basically allows the use of copyrighted works in order to identify the subject matter for purposes of public comment. Wikipedia policy is intentionally stricter than U.S. law with regards to copyrighted images. Any copyrighted image being utilized under "fair use" must meet all ten criteria of WP:NFCC.

Among these rules are WP:NFCC#9 which states that such images can only be used on "article namespace" pages. They may not used on userpages, templates, userboxes, etc.

Some images may only have a trademark

These rules about copyrights/fair use either may or may not apply to any particular logo you see on Wikipedia. Most logos are copyrighted. Some are not. Most logos are trademarks, but a few are not. In many cases they will be both. But in a fair amount of cases, a logo is considered a trademark without also being copyrighted. This is most often the case for simple logos that only contain letters or simple geometric shapes. The rationale here is that such simple logos do not meet the threshold of originality required under U.S. copyright law. Simple letter/color/font combinations do not qualify for copyright – this includes "mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring. Likewise, the arrangement of type on a printed page cannot support a copyright claim." (See the U.S. Copyright Office's Compendium of copyright registration standards, Section 506.03.) Essentially, mere letter or word elements, even if they look fancy, are not copyrighted; typically, a logo has to have a "pictorial" element within it to qualify for copyrighting.

These types of simple logos are considered "public domain", meaning that anyone can use it – although the way that people can use a public domain logo may still be restricted by trademark law. Most basically, if a logo is used to identify a business/organization/product, then you are not allowed to use that logo to identify or refer to another business/organization/product. In general, this is not much of an issue on Wikipedia. The Coca-Cola logo (the quintessential example of a trademarked but not copyrighted logo) is used on the Coca-Cola page, but not the Pepsi Cola page – so no trademark problems result.

For Wikipedia purposes, a "public domain" image does not need a non-free content rationale in order to be used. Among other things, this means that public-domain images can be used in non-article namespace pages – e.g. userpages, templates (including userboxes), and the like – and as icons.

Identifying what is copyrighted, a trademark, or both has some cues to it. If you see an image bearing the notation ® or ™, that means that someone (but you don't know who) claims that this is a trademark (® denotes a "registered trademark", which many people often confuse as a copyright claim). If you see an image with the notation ©, then that means that someone (again, you don't know who) is claiming this is copyrighted. These claims may or not be correct, and people need to use their own judgment. If you see an image without such a notation, that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

On Wikipedia, every image, including logos, that you see will have been uploaded to a specific page that describes the picture. These should (but not always do) contain particular templates (or "tags") that describe whether the image is a (fair-use) copyrighted work, is a (public-domain) trademark, or has some other rationale for its use on Wikipedia. A copyrighted image should have a tag attached to it: {{ Non-free logo}}

An example of such an image page would be the Apple Computer logo. Image pages with the {{ Non-free logo}} tag should also contain some additional (often lengthy) explanations known as a "non-free media use rationale" that justify their use on Wikipedia – this information is required because of Non-free content criterion #10.

Similarly, an image containing a trademark should contain the following tag:

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. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status. See also the Wikipedia trademark disclaimer and Wikipedia:Logos.

code: {{ Trademark}}

And a trademark image that is simple enough that it does not qualify to be copyrighted should be tagged:

This image or logo only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes. These are not eligible for copyright alone because they are not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain. See Wikipedia:Public domain § Fonts or Wikipedia:Restricted materials for more information. Please note: The public domain status of this work is only in regards to its copyright status. There may be other intellectual property restrictions protecting this image, such as trademarks or design patents if it is a logo. PD Public domain false false

code: {{ PD-textlogo}}

Other potentially-applicable tags for more specific circumstances can be found at Category:Wikipedia file copyright templates.

An example of an image page with these kinds of tags include: the IBM logo image page. Normally the {{ Trademark}} and the {{ PD-textlogo}} tags are placed together. Also, under normal circumstances, a {{ PD-textlogo}} image would not contain any "non-free media use rationale", because as a public-domain image, this explanation is unnecessary for use on Wikipedia.

However, just because an image page is tagged as {{ Non-free logo}}, {{ PD-textlogo}}, or anything else, does not mean that this is determinative. Like everything else on Wikipedia, such tags are subject to change by any editor with an opinion – right or wrong. Often the tags are changed by editors subsequent to their uploading because of a difference of opinion. But in principle, a qualified {{ PD-textlogo}} image should be freely usable on Wikipedia in any context, as long as it does not misidentify its subject. Images that are tagged as {{ PD-textlogo}} which have also been moved to the Wikimedia Commons have an additional indicator of being public-domain ("free") images – although again, this is not determinative.

If editors have a disagreement about whether an image qualifies under the {{ PD-textlogo}} standard or any other standard, it is highly suggested that, instead of engaging in revert wars, the editors use each other's talk pages and submit the issue to the relevant noticeboard. Disputes about the qualifications of an allegedly public-domain image can be submitted to the files for discussion noticeboard, as can disputes about the appropriate use of non-free works. In other cases the request for commentary (RFC) procedure can also be used. Any questions can always be directed to the media copyright desk. Use of the incident noticeboard is discouraged unless one of the above processes have been tried first, and/or an editor is clearly acting in bad faith. Referral of an editor to this policy may also help avoid any misunderstandings.

Everything that follows are simply my notes. They are not necessarily authoritative. They will not appear in this manner in a final version of this essay.

There seems to be a bit of confusion about trademarks and copyrights with respect to logos.

1. A logo may be trademarked and/or copyrighted.
2. A logo consisting of nothing but letters (no matter how ornate), simple geometric shapes, and/or simple shapes (i.e. arrows), it is ineligible for copyright. Therefore, it is a public domain image and should be labeled with {{ PD-textlogo}} and {{ Trademarked}}. This does not relieve users of this image from noting Wikipedia disclaimers that such an image may contain a trademark.
3. A logo eligible for copyright should be labeled with {{ Non-free logo}}

If a logo consists entirely of letters, it is important to note the "intrinsic, utilitarian function" of those letters. As an example, the New York Yankees logo consists of an "N" and "Y" whose intrinsic, utilitarian function is to be an "N" and "Y". No matter how ornate, they are still letters and therefore ineligible for copyright and, hence, are PD images. This same logic does not hold for something like ASCII art where letters are arranged to form pictures. The intrinsic value of the letter has been used in a creative way in a manner not consistent with its use as a letter.

In short, ask yourself, "Are these letters, no matter how decorative, intended for use as letters, or do they have a purpose beyond the meaning of the letter like in ASCII art." 999,999 times out of 1,000,000 they are going to simply be letters and ineligible for copyright.

Lanham Act

largely taken from this source info; should be summarized in the near future

The Lanham Act was originally enacted as the Trademark Act of 1946. It has been amended several times. It is codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1127.1 The Lanham Act provides guidance and remedies for both trademark infringement and trademark dilution.

Infringement

Trademark infringement occurs when a trademark is used by someone who does not hold that trademark in a way that causes actual confusion or a likelihood of confusion between the marks. Specifically, the Act prohibits the use of marks that are "likely to cause confusion, or to cause a mistake, or to deceive".

In order to establish infringement, a plaintiff must first show that it uses its trademark use (you cannot simply register and then warehouse a trademark in hopes of some day bringing an infringement suit). They must also show that the trademark is distinctive. Lastly they must show that the defendant's use of a mark is non-functional. A mark is non-functional when it is not inherent to the purpose or description of what it is representing. (For example, "bandage" is functional; "Band-Aid" is non-functional except when used to describe the product in question).

Dilution

A dilution case involves use of a mark in a "commercial context". This means that the use in question must actually be in the stream of commerce and could therefore make a profit for the user.

Dilution deals with marks as "source indicators". This term refers to the ability of a mark to identify a user and/or its products and services. One of the most important aspects of using marks as source indicators is the reputation of a user and how that affects the public's perception of the mark.

Dilution occurs when someone uses another's mark in a commercial context in a way that lessens the power of the trademark holder's mark as a source indicator.

forms of dilution

The first is dilution by tarnishment, which is the diminishing of the power of the senior user's mark because of its association with the negative aspects or connotations of the junior user's use of the mark.

The second is dilution by blurring, which is when the power of the senior user's mark is decreased because of the blurring of the mark's distinctive quality caused by the existence of the junior user's mark.

Ornate letters

It's ornate, so now what?

It doesn't matter, it is still a letter and is not intended as anything else than a standard letter.

Ornamentation on letters is specifically mentioned as something that is not copyrightable (page 3, bottom left).

Works of art

Works of art with a letter in them are copyrightable, IMHO (show example), but it should be taken into account whether it is an ornate letter or an ornate drawing with a letter in it.

Where do we draw the line?

Bottom line: Determine if is letters with ornamentation or art with letters.

Uncopyrightable, yet trademarked images aren't unrestricted as the General Disclaimers of Wikipedia explicitly mention how to treat such images.

User:Elcobbola/Copyright.

"Typeface" is a term defined by the House Report of the 1976 revision of the Copyright Act as follows:

"...a set of letters, numbers, or other symbolic characters, whose forms are related by repeating design elements consistently applied in a notational system and are intended to be embodied in articles, whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text or other cognizable combinations of characters." ^[1]

It should be noted that "articles" in this case means "any medium in which it is used".

Eltra Corp. v. Ringer sets forth:

"Under Regulation 202.10(c) it is patent that typeface is an industrial design in which the design cannot exist independently and separately as a work of art. Because of this, typeface has never been considered entitled to copyright under the provisions of §5(g)." ^[2]

The United States Copyright Office sets forth:

"...mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" ... [are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection]" ^[3]

There appears to be a misconception on Wikipedia and the Commons that only standard/publicly-available/etc typefaces (e.g. Times New Roman font, Verdana font, etc.) are ineligible for copyright protection. There is no support for this belief. If text falls within the definition of typeface above, it is generally not considered eligible for copyright; no consideration is given to prevalence or dispensation.