nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 255:
Line 255: + + + +
→Photo: So there's no reason to not use the photograph.
:3. About the trademark. Sorry, I can not find the arguements at Wikipedia that resulted in that photo, and like photos that feature trademarks as large parts of the photo, removed. It is beyond my area of knowledge. I was working with what I recalled. Perhaps [[User:Tmtoulouse]] can make the situation more clear but I can not. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 13:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:3. About the trademark. Sorry, I can not find the arguements at Wikipedia that resulted in that photo, and like photos that feature trademarks as large parts of the photo, removed. It is beyond my area of knowledge. I was working with what I recalled. Perhaps [[User:Tmtoulouse]] can make the situation more clear but I can not. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 13:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
"A trademark right doesn't give you the right to forbid use of the word. What is does give is the right to prevent use of the word in a way the would confuse consumers as to the origin of the goods or the sponsorship of the goods," said Terrence Carroll, a copyright attorney. This from [http://news.com.com/Scientologists+in+trademark+disputes/2100-1023_3-207618.html]. The photograph is not a picture of the body of information that is scientology. Please understand, I am not attempting to cause a problem, but to resolve a potential problem. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 13:26, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
"A trademark right doesn't give you the right to forbid use of the word. What is does give is the right to prevent use of the word in a way the would confuse consumers as to the origin of the goods or the sponsorship of the goods," said Terrence Carroll, a copyright attorney. This from [http://news.com.com/Scientologists+in+trademark+disputes/2100-1023_3-207618.html]. The photograph is not a picture of the body of information that is scientology. Please understand, I am not attempting to cause a problem, but to resolve a potential problem. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 13:26, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:::# Okay, so we can take it that the modified caption is acceptable.
:::# You go to considerable length to prove something that I wasn't disputing. I agree that there is a difference between the religion/philosophy/body-of-knowledge and the church. My point was that this is not reason to exclude the photograph. Just like an article about the makers of Coke can include a picture of one of their products, despite there being a difference between the company and the product, it is entirely legitimate to include a picture of a Scientology church in an article about Scientology. Just like it would be okay to include a picture of a Baptist church in an article about Christianity.
:::# So you can't (presently) refute my argument about the trademark, except to raise the idea of the trademark taking up "large parts" of the photograph, which is not the case here anyway.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::Unbelieveable. Christianity is a body of belief and knowledge, and churches are ONE of the many places people practice it, just as with Scientology. Therefore, a picture of one of these venues is illustrative of the concept. Your arguments on this are bizarre, T, and you give no rationale for it.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 14:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::Unbelieveable. Christianity is a body of belief and knowledge, and churches are ONE of the many places people practice it, just as with Scientology. Therefore, a picture of one of these venues is illustrative of the concept. Your arguments on this are bizarre, T, and you give no rationale for it.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 14:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)