Image talk:Wbklawlogo.gif

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a partner in Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP, I am authorized to, and do, grant permission on behalf of Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP for the display of this logo in accordance with the GFDL.

-- Michael D. Sullivan, Michael D. Sullivan (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Michael, that will not be necessary, and is also not encouraged. Wikipedia policy is happy to allow this logo image to reside on the servers under the fair use doctrine. There are bots which routinely cull fair use that isnt acceptable, so it may be inadvertently nominated for deletion, but if this happens, yell out and I'll rescue it.

If your firm releases this file under the terms of the GFDL, it can be used anywhere, not just on Wikipedia. It can also be modified by someone else, and used anywhere without any recourse from copyright law. As this logo is very particular to the firm, this is not a major problem. Honestly, I think that companies should be willing to release their logo into the public domain, or a free license, as trademark law is sufficient and appropriate protection. </rant>

If you still want this image to be released into the public domain, or under the GFDL, please send an email from your work email address to permissions-en@wikimedia.org with an explicit "release notice" and send me a note via email. Also if you do this, can you please make it clear whether the release is covering the small image, or the larger image that you originally uploaded. Ideally, we want the large image to be covered, as it provides more detail, allowing the viewer to see the watermark/seal in the background.

The benefit of releasing the logo into the public domain, or under the GFDL, is that it can be used for any purpose, rather than being restricted by fair use. For example, if it was not restricted by fair use, you would be allowed to display the logo on your user page accompanied by some text that says you a partner there, if you wanted to do that. It could also be used in News bulletins that mention the firm. The point is the options are limited only by trademark law once copyright law has been pushed out of the way. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, John. I think for now I'll mark the statement above deleted, and let the small version be used under fair use. Michael D. Sullivan (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)