This Request for comment is about an image of the FC Vorskla Poltava shield (logo).

Myself ( User:Zscout370), User:Palffy and others are having an issue over the following image Image:Vorskla poltava.gif. The image is of the logo of the FC Vorskla Poltava, a football club based in the Ukraine. Since it is a logo, generally, under Wikipedia policy, it is tagged as a fair-use logo. However, Palffy believes it should be in the public domain under the PD-UA-exempt template, which takes text directly from the Ukraine copyright law. There is an exception in Ukraine copyright law that prevents the copyrighting of certain objects. 1 Article 10 Objects Not Covered by Protection goes as follows:

Objects Not Covered by Protection

Article 10. The following items shall not be objects of copyright:

The drafts of the official symbols and signs specified in points (d) and (e) of part 1 of this Article shall, prior to their official approval, be regarded as works and shall be protected pursuant to this Law.

Under clause D, Palffy believes the logo is part of public domain, since this a logo of a sports club, which is by definition an organization. I (User:Zscout370) personally do not think so. The only consequence that has occured due to this issue is the removal of the image from Template:FC Vorskla Poltava. The image was initially tagged as fair use but was recently changed by Palffy to include the Ukraine PD exemption tag.

1. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Palffy 21:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• I'm not a lawyer familiar with Ukrainian copyright law, so I can only offer my opinion: The translated text of the Ukrainian copyright law does seem to suggest that such a logo cannot be copyrighted. However, this does not necessarily mean they can be used freely... maybe the logo is considered a trademark? Perhaps someone can contact the Ukrainian soccer organization which utilizes this logo. ~ MDD 46 96 23:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• I was under the impression that, due to the complexities of logos, copyright and trademark law, logos were presumed non-free barring obvious evidence per WP:LOGO. I'm not sure how what is presented is obvious. -- Iamunknown 23:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Ukrainian trademark law is not exempts sport club logos from list of trademarks. So {{ non-free logo}} (it covers copyrights and/or trademarks) is most appropriate template until somebody proof that logo is not registered in Ukrainian national trademark registry. Same problems happens with Image:Shakhtar-Donetsk.png (see club claims) and other Ukrainian sport club logos. -- EugeneZelenko 03:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• IANAL but we all are not, so we can just speculate. The Ukrainian law is crystal clear that company logos are not copyrightable. Trademark and copyright should not be confused and not being able to copyright an image does not preclude from being able to register (and defend) an image as a trademark to protect one's profits. Trademark infringement prosecution does not have to be carried through (or along with) the copyright infringement. Hypothetically, one falsely applying a trademark registered by someone else to promote the fake product breaks the trademark law all right regardless of whether one also breaks a copyright law. Merely reproducing the logo without any intent of misrepresentation of any kind is different from such hypothetical case and seems to be purely a copyright issue. If the copyright law is clear on that, I don't see any concern in using the company logos in Wikipeida articles based on their non-copyrightability rather than invoking fair use every single time. -- Irpen 06:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• It appears indeed as if the Ukrainian copyright law considers logos uncopyrightable. I would also think that Eugene is also correct and that such logos may be trademarked under the Ukrainian trademark law (in English). Now, normally I would say we should look only at the copyright status of an image and thus this image would be fine as PD-whatever. But the WMF licensing policy appears to say we may only consider a work "free" if it is freely licensed or PD, and additionally, if it is " not covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above." Make of that whatever you like. While trademark rights probably would not prohibit our showing a trademarked logo (as opposed to using it), I still appears as if trademarked items weren't "free cultural works", precisely because they're "not free to use..." Lupo 15:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • So this means it still stays out of templates/userboxes? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Lupo's "not free to use" is too general. They are free to use in terms of distribution (or redistribution) of information which is all we need for WP and those who want to reuse it for further derivative works. -- Irpen 02:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • 'Scuse me, Irpen, it's not "my" "not free to use". Take it up with the WMF. Their licensing policy seems not to consider this free enough because there are limitations on "use" (though, as I said above, not on "showing"). The license policy also does appear to consider a great many other kinds of images "not free enough". Images of people, for instance, cannot be used in advertising without the subject's consent, even if freely licensed. That's a limitation on use... I'm not saying I like this definition the WMF has adopted. In my view, it is too broad by going beyond copyright. But it's what we're stuck with through that binding licensing policy of the foundation. Lupo 08:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply