We're talking strictly about copyright here. If not "trademark" that are too simple to be copyrightable would be considered but they are not. The reason the logo would become unacceptable on Commons is based on copyright.
2014-12-13 4:27 GMT-07:00 Marco Chiesa <chiesa.ma...@gmail.com>: > > On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 12:07 PM, JP Béland <lebo.bel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Russavia wrote "To crop the > > logo out to appear as it does in your linked to image, it would be a > > copyvio. " Doesn't the free license we use is supposed to allow (and even > > force) any modifications of an image to be free also? > > > > Not necessarily. Basically, you cannot release rights you don't have. A > simple example: let's say you have a free photo of politician A, and a free > photo of porn star B (in some explicit pose). If you crop the head of A and > paste on the body of B, it will probably considered illegal in quite a > large number of countries. In this case, it's still free copyright-wise... > > Cruccone > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
