Template talk:Trademarked

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
  • See Archive 1 for discussion of an earlier version of this template which may not apply to the current template.

Current Version[edit]

I really like the versions of this template since the rewrite by Kelly Martin. Please don't make substantial changes to the character of this template without discussion. Since this template deals with wording which is legally important, unless someone objects I will probably protect it once we are clear that it is stable. --Gmaxwell 23:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I like Kelly's version too. / Fred Chess 16:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words[edit]

Please change back the "may be" to "is" and instead ensure that you apply this template *correctly*. The "may be" removes the objectivity of the template. *Anything* "may be" trademarked, so this version makes it useless and tries to deny responsibility in a very dishonest and cowardly way. Such weasel statements are empty. Make a clear statement. What are you afraid of? --Rtc 22:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point of the "may be", RTC. The question of if a trademark related restriction applies depends as much on who/where you are, the context of your use, and nature of your use as it does the work itself. --Gmaxwell 03:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

May be or appears to be?[edit]

I like Kelly's version better. Look at this photo for example, I'd say it "...may be subject to trademark laws..." but not that it "...appears to be subject to trademark laws..." I think we should err on the side of caution. Yonatan talk 00:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki of Template:Trademarked[edit]

Delete for Interwiki of Template:Trademarked, please. I move Interwiki from Template:Trademarked to Template:Trademarked/doc. Thank you. --Idh0854 (talk) 10:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks a bit like a copyright tag[edit]

Going through Category:Media without a license: needs history check, I find quite a few instances of people replacing a copyright tag with this. Perhaps it needs to be made more obvious that this is not a copyright tag. It also seems to be the go-to tag for people uploading their own logos who don't want to release them under a free license, as if to say "this is trademarked (and also copyrighted)". Many people don't understand the difference –⁠moogsi (blah) 22:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the text should explicitly say "This tag provides information for re-users only, does not indicate any particular copyright status. All files using this tag also require a separate copyright licence or public domain tag". --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
There is one template which explicitly states this. I can't remember which one it is, though. Kind of like how {{coat of arms}} does it. I thought it might be {{insignia}} but that says nothing –⁠moogsi (blah) 10:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Found it. The boilerplate I'm thinking of is rendered by {{Copyright-tag-still-required}} –⁠moogsi (blah) 10:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah, well found. I'd looked as well but missed it. Let's embed that into this template, then. The wording could do with some improvement as well. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Interesting: looking at the page history I found that I added that clarification myself in 2008. Since then it seems to have gone missing. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
It was moved to the note parameter of {{Trademarked/en}} and presumably translated from there? It's not clear where that parameter is meant to be passed to, and it doesn't render in any circumstance –⁠moogsi (blah) 13:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, after trying to come up with something that wasn't a letter in a circle, I came up with "letters in a circle" :/ All the other templates have quite simple symbols on them.

I think that maybe just the letters in black/dark grey would be enough... I want this template to still be easy to spot among others. The other option is to change it, and then someone who knows something about graphic design will see it and make it better if it looks terrible. Hopefully :) –⁠moogsi (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks great. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I just changed it, anyone reading this can have a go at doing a better job of visually representing "caution, trademark" or "trademark information" :) I also went ahead and added {{Copyright-tag-still-required}}, and tweaked the English text as in the topic below –⁠moogsi (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Trademark Warning Symbol.svg

Came up with this as an alternative after seeing your suggestions. Is this what you had in mind? ViperSnake151 (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd definetly go for a simplistic ® or symbol which one recognizes quickly, even when not already familiar with the template. The one by you, moogsi, is just confusing since there is no recognition value at all. Those by ViperSnake151 are OK, although I never saw the need to change the image in the first place (except for the color maybe Face-wink.svg). --Patrick87 (talk) 01:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I like it better than my one. I'd have the symbols as just bare ® and ™ instead of putting them in warning circles. But yes, that's more what I was thinking of, I didn't know if it was too complex or not but it looks fine –⁠moogsi (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What about one of the following or even the simple one on the right?

I'd probably go for a black or gray version since they fit best compared to the accompanying license tags. Then I'd use either the plain version on the right if we want to keep it simple or one of the two on the left if we want something a little more appealing. --Patrick87 (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The topic below this one (they sort of cross over each other, sorry) explains the motivation for getting rid of R in a circle (maybe you don't agree with that). The choice of font is the same one as was used in the old ® symbol, and the CC templates. There's no ring because there is no such thing as a ™ in a circle, it's always kind of sitting there. The white lines are just noise :) There is a temptation to get fancy with shadows/gradients/fill effects/whatever, but other symbols which are actually in use are pretty flat and simple. There is some method in my madness, but as I said before I'm no graphic designer and I don't hold any of my opinions very strongly :)

To be clear, I agree there are better choices than the current image, which is... not great –⁠moogsi (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If you really want to get rid of the ® (which probably has the best recognition value) then I'll definitely go for . Or we could create a graphic which contains them both since in principle they are not redundant: A registered trademark uses the ® an unregistered trademark the but our template is used for both. --Patrick87 (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason it looks like a copyright tag is because it shares the same blue-gray color scheme as almost all other the other templates placed on file pages (see below).

Template Purpose
used for Public Domain licenses
used for GNU licenses
used for Creative Commons licenses
used by {{Copyrighted free use}} license and related templates
{{Copyright by Wikimedia-Layout}}
used by {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} license and related templates
{{Other License-Layout}}
used for license templates which are not based on CC, GNU, PD or Copyrighted licenses
{{Deprecated License-Layout}}
used for deprecated license templates
used by Restriction tags
used by infobars
used by freedom of panorama tags
used by Partnership templates based on {{CC-Layout}}
used by generic Source templates
used by Image cleanup templates

Changing the "R symbol" does nothing to address this larger issue. In addition, it seems that changing the image when it only involved a dialog between two people, is insufficient to achieve consensus, especially when it comes to a highly-used template such as this one. Senator2029 00:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually I never gave any attention to the colors of these templates, so I don't know if modifying the colors would change anything. However for the time being I've taken the liberty to change the icon to the (slightly modified) version of ViperSnake151. I think it's the best proposal so far since it combines both, the "R" and "TM" symbols and also incorporates the warning sign. So at least everybody should stumble over it and wonder why there are two different symbols and why caution has to be taken, so maybe people read the text and recognize it's not a license tag after all. --Patrick87 (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not a legal advice template[edit]

The 'R in a circle' logo used in this template is both highly misleading and legally incorrect. By international convention that logo is used to mean that a trademark is registered (ie has been formally approved and accepted onto a country's official trademarks register). However, a mark does not need to be registered to be a legally-protectable trademark, and indeed the vast majority of trademarks are unregistered. Such marks acquire rights not by registration but by use.

In some (probably most) jurisdictions, applying the 'R in a circle' logo to a trademark which is not registered is unlawful, and could leave a trademark owner open to legal action, especially if the owner actually added the tag. In any event, applying the tag as it currently exists to a mark is making a clear statement about the legal status of that mark which is in most cases incorrect, and which implies a level of legal and factual knowledge which we do not have.

I propose for these reasons to replace the 'R in a circle' logo with the warning triangle used in {{personality rights}} to make it clearer that this is a re-use warning template not a legal advice template. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a ™ symbol with a warning triangle overlaid bottom right? It kind of becomes unrecognizable without a unique image (→mockup). I dunno how much currency the TM symbol has (is it just an Anglosphere thing?) but it doesn't imply a particular status like ® does –⁠moogsi (blah) 18:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The mockup looks very good to me. Do you want to implement it, along with the TM & triangle symbol you suggested? (I'm not very skilled at graphics). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The grammar of the last sentence is not very good, and the meaning is totally unclear. We could perhaps change to "This tag does not imply acknowledgement by Wikimedia Commons or the Wikimedia Foundation of the existence of any trademark rights ." --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The phrase "the use of this file" is confusing. To me, it looks like it's supposed to mean "the fact we're hosting this file does not indicate any endorsement of the trademark holder by WMF or vice versa". I'm not sure how necessary it is to disclaim that. I've seen a similar disclaimer to the effect of "the presence of the template does not imply [status], nor does the absence of it imply the absence of [status]", which is the ultimate arse-coverer really, and similar to what you're saying. I'm not sure we need to explicitly say that, but rewording the statement as it stands to something like
  • "The hosting of this file at Commons does not imply endorsement of the trademark holder by the Wikimedia Foundation, or vice versa" or,
  • "The use of this file on Wikimedia Foundation projects does not imply endorsement of the trademark holder by the Foundation, or vice versa"'
I don't know what other "use" we would need a disclaimer against –⁠moogsi (blah) 15:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Neither the hosting of the file on Commons nor its use on projects needs any disclaimer. We don't need to try to provide any legal disclaimer on behalf of the WMF, as they could do that themselves in their general terms if they felt it necessary. And there is no sense in providing a disclaimer for Commons, as that is not itself a legal entity. The only possible useful meaning would be "the presence of the template does not imply [status], nor does the absence of it imply the absence of [status]". I'm dubious at to whether that adds much value, though, and would be quite content to see the sentence removed entirely. If you agree, let's do that. No doubt someone will comment further if they can make out a good case for it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I think the disclaimer does need to be there in some form, as trademark legislation places restrictions on who is allowed to display the trademark and for what purpose, so to be safe I think it should be there in its tweaked form. Any other "use" concerns are covered in the advice to reusers in the rest of the text –⁠moogsi (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)