Hallo Hubert,

Am 22.02.06 schriebst Du:

> Just because you write about something doesn't give you a right to own
> it. Even if you are Wikipedia or think this is a nice thought
> otherwise.

It's not really about owning something you write on, but on how to write
about something and own everything you need to do this. However this
approch means that you have to get along without using some things you'd
like to use, such as lots of logos without a matching license.

It is disputed if this policy should really kept up as strictly, but it
seems that will take some more time.

> Handing an image to Wikipedia and say "do what you want with it" would 
> strongly contradict this, and I doubt any other owner of comparable 
> intellectual property will do likewise, e.g. the owners of the ARD-logo 
> you quote.

A lot of legal owners aren't really aware of the issues involed and make
unclear license statements when asked if they would mind usage. The ARD
doesn't really seem to be an exception. Those licenses are sometimes still
accepted by Wikipedia (at least for a while...).

However there's a special thing with the ARD logo. It turns out that a court
decided that the work is trivial and has no copyright.

>   * add a link to the official logo at the bottom of the entry

Looks ugly, this doesn't fix the missing image in the infobox.

>   * find a picture (photography) of the logo, and ask the photographer
>     if it's ok to include that (with all the IP handover Wikipedia.de
>     demands). I didn't find one from a quick look, I only have this one
>     with the old logo: http://www.feyrer.de/NetBSD/netbsd_hubertf1.jpg,
>     and I'm not the photographer of it. (I don't know who made it)

According to Wikipedia discussion it seems that it's not allowed to make
photographs of copyrighted objects that aren't permanently publicly visible
in a street.

> Out of curiosity, what does the english license of Wikipedia state as 
> requirements, as you mention it's different from the german one?

It seems to be mostly fair use, see my other reply.

Since the issue turns out to be mostly home-made by Wikipedia, I've also
summarized my findings there. See
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Bildrechte#Mal_wieder_Logos
if you are interested.

Bye, Chris