Copyright infringement on the WR logo Options

[Wikitaka]

Wikipedia claims the right to use our logo under "fair use".

They claim that it is "low resolution", while the resolution is the same as here on the page. They also claim that "The entire logo is used to convey the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended image." As they use the logo in their article that is written with a conflict of interest and criticises us (or at least did in the past), it is used to misrepresent us.

On it goes, [...]assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization[...]

Do you think it is time to open a file deletion debate over the obvious copyright infringement of our logo?

[Heat]

Web Fred has a point, the "logo" is really just a typeface with a generic white hat.

[Somey]

Web Fred has a point, the "logo" is really just a typeface with a generic white hat.

Not only that, when I made the logo I didn't even use my own hat.

[Web Fred]

Web Fred has a point, the "logo" is really just a typeface with a generic white hat.

Not only that, when I made the logo I didn't even use my own hat.

Ah, but you did nick the Wikipedia globe to do the other graphic.

So whomever suggests a take down notice for the WR logo, I should point out that the shoe is really on the other foot.

And the other guy has more money!

[Somey]

And the other guy has more money!

Did the person who did the WP globe logo at least get paid for it, then? I'm guessing no.

Anyway, it's been rare, but things like this have happened before, where someone takes it into their head to make some sort of silly "point" on Wikipedia that's supposedly on our behalf, but is really meant to embarrass us and get revenge for some perceived slight or other. In the past, these efforts have usually been quashed almost immediately by WP admins who, in some cases reluctantly, have come to understand that this isn't how we've done things around here (and that critics' forums in general are both useful and inevitable). Now, those admins are not as willing to help out on Wikipedia, since everything here is in flux at the moment and they don't know what to think or how to react to these kinds of activities.

In this case, however, I'm 100-percent certain that Mr. Wikitaka's actions on Wikipedia concerning the WR logo are entirely his own idea and are specifically meant to "kick us while we're down." Luckily, nobody really cares. But in the interest of not having anyone here waste any more time, I would just say that the best thing to do here would be to ignore it for now, but maybe keep the "ol' ban-hammer" handy (both here and there) in case of repeat performances.