Trademarked icons in digikam?

[Luca Beltrame]

Hello,

when digikam deprecated the software collection and merged the data in the
main repository, I noticed, while packaging git snapshots for openSUSE, that
there are a number of potential trademarked icons in the repository (core/
data/icons):

- dropbox
- facebook
- flickr
- gdrive
- imageshack

and others.

Were those icons put there in accordance to the trademark guidelines of the
respective services? Otherwise, at least the most conscious distributions
won't be able to distribute digikam due to possible trademark usage
violations.

--
Luca Beltrame - KDE Forums team
KDE Science supporter
GPG key ID: A29D259B

[Gilles Caulier-4]

In fact the icons are exactly the same than kipi-plugins, which is already packaged.

The icons are not the same than trademarked one, of course. There are just an imitation with severals differences, as i can see.

Gilles Caulier

2018-05-10 10:51 GMT+02:00 Luca Beltrame <[hidden email]>:

Hello,

when digikam deprecated the software collection and merged the data in the
main repository, I noticed, while packaging git snapshots for openSUSE, that
there are a number of potential trademarked icons in the repository (core/
data/icons):

- dropbox
- facebook
- flickr
- gdrive
- imageshack

and others.

Were those icons put there in accordance to the trademark guidelines of the
respective services? Otherwise, at least the most conscious distributions
won't be able to distribute digikam due to possible trademark usage
violations.

--
Luca Beltrame - KDE Forums team
KDE Science supporter
GPG key ID: A29D259B

[Fabian Vogt]

Hi,

Am Donnerstag, 10. Mai 2018, 13:05:12 CEST schrieb Gilles Caulier:
> In fact the icons are exactly the same than kipi-plugins, which is already
> packaged.

Yes, but it has the exact same issue. We just weren't aware of it before the
move made us look at the icons.

> The icons are not the same than trademarked one, of course. There are just
> an imitation with severals differences, as i can see.

That's actually worse.

Let me quote the Facebook brand guidelines:

"Don’t modify Facebook brand assets in any way"
"Don't use trademarks, names, domain names, logos or other content that
imitates or could be confused with Facebook"
"Don't use any icons, images or trademarks to represent Facebook other than
what is found on this resource center"

(https://en.facebookbrand.com/guidelines/brand, "Don'ts" section)

I would expect the guidelines for the other logos to be the same.

Cheers,
Fabian

>
> Gilles Caulier
>
> 2018-05-10 10:51 GMT+02:00 Luca Beltrame <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > when digikam deprecated the software collection and merged the data in the
> > main repository, I noticed, while packaging git snapshots for openSUSE,
> > that
> > there are a number of potential trademarked icons in the repository (core/
> > data/icons):
> >
> > - dropbox
> > - facebook
> > - flickr
> > - gdrive
> > - imageshack
> >
> > and others.
> >
> > Were those icons put there in accordance to the trademark guidelines of
> > the
> > respective services? Otherwise, at least the most conscious distributions
> > won't be able to distribute digikam due to possible trademark usage
> > violations.
> >
> > --
> > Luca Beltrame - KDE Forums team
> > KDE Science supporter
> > GPG key ID: A29D259B
>

[Maik Qualmann]

If I look through the icons here under openSUSE, I find some in choqok, breeze
or oxygen5. Are these icons also problematic? If I understand the guidelines
correctly, they must not be changed in appearance. We could change that. I was
recently porting Dropbox to new API and read the guidelines and I think the
use of Dropbox icons is okay. Dropbox has activated the digiKam uploader
without complaint. Which solution do you think would be the right one?

Maik

Am Donnerstag, 10. Mai 2018, 13:39:44 CEST schrieb Fabian Vogt:

> Hi,
>
> Am Donnerstag, 10. Mai 2018, 13:05:12 CEST schrieb Gilles Caulier:
> > In fact the icons are exactly the same than kipi-plugins, which is already
> > packaged.
>
> Yes, but it has the exact same issue. We just weren't aware of it before the
> move made us look at the icons.
>
> > The icons are not the same than trademarked one, of course. There are just
> > an imitation with severals differences, as i can see.
>
> That's actually worse.
>
> Let me quote the Facebook brand guidelines:
>
> "Don’t modify Facebook brand assets in any way"
> "Don't use trademarks, names, domain names, logos or other content that
> imitates or could be confused with Facebook"
> "Don't use any icons, images or trademarks to represent Facebook other than
> what is found on this resource center"
>
> (https://en.facebookbrand.com/guidelines/brand, "Don'ts" section)
>
> I would expect the guidelines for the other logos to be the same.
>
> Cheers,
> Fabian
>
> > Gilles Caulier
> >
> > 2018-05-10 10:51 GMT+02:00 Luca Beltrame <[hidden email]>:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > when digikam deprecated the software collection and merged the data in
> > > the
> > > main repository, I noticed, while packaging git snapshots for openSUSE,
> > > that
> > > there are a number of potential trademarked icons in the repository
> > > (core/
> > > data/icons):
> > >
> > > - dropbox
> > > - facebook
> > > - flickr
> > > - gdrive
> > > - imageshack
> > >
> > > and others.
> > >
> > > Were those icons put there in accordance to the trademark guidelines of
> > > the
> > > respective services? Otherwise, at least the most conscious
> > > distributions
> > > won't be able to distribute digikam due to possible trademark usage
> > > violations.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Luca Beltrame - KDE Forums team
> > > KDE Science supporter
> > > GPG key ID: A29D259B

[Gilles Caulier-4]

In all case, if the icons are problematic from the right viewpoint, we can always drop the icons and replace it by the generic "internet" one from Oxygen or another set. there is not technical issue to process these changes.

Gilles

2018-05-11 12:34 GMT+02:00 Maik Qualmann <[hidden email]>:

If I look through the icons here under openSUSE, I find some in choqok, breeze
or oxygen5. Are these icons also problematic? If I understand the guidelines
correctly, they must not be changed in appearance. We could change that. I was
recently porting Dropbox to new API and read the guidelines and I think the
use of Dropbox icons is okay. Dropbox has activated the digiKam uploader
without complaint. Which solution do you think would be the right one?

Maik

Am Donnerstag, 10. Mai 2018, 13:39:44 CEST schrieb Fabian Vogt:
> Hi,
>
> Am Donnerstag, 10. Mai 2018, 13:05:12 CEST schrieb Gilles Caulier:
> > In fact the icons are exactly the same than kipi-plugins, which is already
> > packaged.
>
> Yes, but it has the exact same issue. We just weren't aware of it before the
> move made us look at the icons.
>
> > The icons are not the same than trademarked one, of course. There are just
> > an imitation with severals differences, as i can see.
>
> That's actually worse.
>
> Let me quote the Facebook brand guidelines:
>
> "Don’t modify Facebook brand assets in any way"
> "Don't use trademarks, names, domain names, logos or other content that
> imitates or could be confused with Facebook"
> "Don't use any icons, images or trademarks to represent Facebook other than
> what is found on this resource center"
>
> (https://en.facebookbrand.com/guidelines/brand, "Don'ts" section)
>
> I would expect the guidelines for the other logos to be the same.
>
> Cheers,
> Fabian
>
> > Gilles Caulier
> >
> > 2018-05-10 10:51 GMT+02:00 Luca Beltrame <[hidden email]>:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > when digikam deprecated the software collection and merged the data in
> > > the
> > > main repository, I noticed, while packaging git snapshots for openSUSE,
> > > that
> > > there are a number of potential trademarked icons in the repository
> > > (core/
> > > data/icons):
> > >
> > > - dropbox
> > > - facebook
> > > - flickr
> > > - gdrive
> > > - imageshack
> > >
> > > and others.
> > >
> > > Were those icons put there in accordance to the trademark guidelines of
> > > the
> > > respective services? Otherwise, at least the most conscious
> > > distributions
> > > won't be able to distribute digikam due to possible trademark usage
> > > violations.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Luca Beltrame - KDE Forums team
> > > KDE Science supporter
> > > GPG key ID: A29D259B

[Simon Frei]

I believe it is fine to use the official (!) logos. Dropbox has a paragraph that essentially describes our function:

    You may only use the Dropbox name and logo in your app to identify or direct a user to a Dropbox integration or functionality. For example, you may use a Dropbox logo and "Save to Dropbox" text on a button to prompt a user to save a file to Dropbox.
    https://www.dropbox.com/developers/reference/branding-guide

For facebook I couldn't find something that clear, for obvious reasons their documentation mostly talks about websites, sharing and linking to organization facebook pages. But the following also seems very close:

    Do only use the "f" logo to refer to:
    [...]
     - Your product’s integration with Facebook, such as "For use with Facebook"
   https://en.facebookbrand.com/assets/f-logo

I would just always use the official logo, if provided, and assume it's fine as we direct users to their services in good faith. All the docs I have seen are very clear, that they do not want any alterations of their logos or self-creations, that look similar to their logo - so using something that looks like the logo but isn't really is a bad idea.

On 11/05/18 14:04, Gilles Caulier wrote:

In all case, if the icons are problematic from the right viewpoint, we can always drop the icons and replace it by the generic "internet" one from Oxygen or another set. there is not technical issue to process these changes.

Gilles

2018-05-11 12:34 GMT+02:00 Maik Qualmann <[hidden email]>:

If I look through the icons here under openSUSE, I find some in choqok, breeze
or oxygen5. Are these icons also problematic? If I understand the guidelines
correctly, they must not be changed in appearance. We could change that. I was
recently porting Dropbox to new API and read the guidelines and I think the
use of Dropbox icons is okay. Dropbox has activated the digiKam uploader
without complaint. Which solution do you think would be the right one?

Maik

Am Donnerstag, 10. Mai 2018, 13:39:44 CEST schrieb Fabian Vogt:
> Hi,
>
> Am Donnerstag, 10. Mai 2018, 13:05:12 CEST schrieb Gilles Caulier:
> > In fact the icons are exactly the same than kipi-plugins, which is already
> > packaged.
>
> Yes, but it has the exact same issue. We just weren't aware of it before the
> move made us look at the icons.
>
> > The icons are not the same than trademarked one, of course. There are just
> > an imitation with severals differences, as i can see.
>
> That's actually worse.
>
> Let me quote the Facebook brand guidelines:
>
> "Don’t modify Facebook brand assets in any way"
> "Don't use trademarks, names, domain names, logos or other content that
> imitates or could be confused with Facebook"
> "Don't use any icons, images or trademarks to represent Facebook other than
> what is found on this resource center"
>
> (https://en.facebookbrand.com/guidelines/brand, "Don'ts" section)
>
> I would expect the guidelines for the other logos to be the same.
>
> Cheers,
> Fabian
>
> > Gilles Caulier
> >
> > 2018-05-10 10:51 GMT+02:00 Luca Beltrame <[hidden email]>:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > when digikam deprecated the software collection and merged the data in
> > > the
> > > main repository, I noticed, while packaging git snapshots for openSUSE,
> > > that
> > > there are a number of potential trademarked icons in the repository
> > > (core/
> > > data/icons):
> > >
> > > - dropbox
> > > - facebook
> > > - flickr
> > > - gdrive
> > > - imageshack
> > >
> > > and others.
> > >
> > > Were those icons put there in accordance to the trademark guidelines of
> > > the
> > > respective services? Otherwise, at least the most conscious
> > > distributions
> > > won't be able to distribute digikam due to possible trademark usage
> > > violations.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Luca Beltrame - KDE Forums team
> > > KDE Science supporter
> > > GPG key ID: A29D259B