Can I use organizations' logos in my PowerPoint without permission?

[Kaylee]

(Mods, I don't know if this is the right forum for this question -- feel free to move it if you like.)

I recently put together a PowerPoint presentation and then remembered after the fact that I really need to get permission to use the photographs, graphics and illustrations. I finished doing that for the graphic and illustration and decided it will be much easier to replace the photographs with ones that I can get from web sites that sell royalty free rights for about a dollar a file. That's on my to do list the next time I have a free 2, 3 hours when I'm not feeling tired.

But what about organizations' logos? I assume that I can just go ahead and use them without permission? I'm only using them because the organizations are relevant to my topic -- I'm not misrepresenting them or anything that they do. This is an area of copyright laws that I don't understand and I wasn't able to find anything helpful on the web.

If it makes a difference, I'm not currently using the PPT file in connection with anything to sell money. It's strictly to pass on information. (The topic is common captioning problems and the target audience are people with hearing loss.) Although I may in the future put it up on a web site where I may also sell ad space -- but that is just a possibility for the way off future.

If it helps to answer the question, PM me and I'll e-mail you a link to view the PPT.

Thanks!

 

[drkitten]

(Mods, I don't know if this is the right forum for this question -- feel free to move it if you like.)

I recently put together a PowerPoint presentation and then remembered after the fact that I really need to get permission to use the photographs, graphics and illustrations. I finished doing that for the graphic and illustration and decided it will be much easier to replace the photographs with ones that I can get from web sites that sell royalty free rights for about a dollar a file. That's on my to do list the next time I have a free 2, 3 hours when I'm not feeling tired.

But what about organizations' logos? I assume that I can just go ahead and use them without permission? I'm only using them because the organizations are relevant to my topic -- I'm not misrepresenting them or anything that they do. This is an area of copyright laws that I don't understand and I wasn't able to find anything helpful on the web.

If it makes a difference, I'm not currently using the PPT file in connection with anything to sell money. It's strictly to pass on information. (The topic is common captioning problems and the target audience are people with hearing loss.) Although I may in the future put it up on a web site where I may also sell ads -- but that is just a possibility for the way off future.

If it helps to answer the question, PM me and I'll e-mail you a link to view the PPT.

Thanks!

Under US law, "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." I don't know exactly the context in which you're using these logos, but it sounds to me that you are specifically using them for criticism and comment (on the organizations).

 

[Piggy]

drkitten is correct. If this some in-house presentation, don't sweat it. If you're somehow publicly distributing or vending this thing, then you'd need to consider contacting the companies' legal depts. (Who, by the way, would probably say no as a matter of course.)

 

[ejk]

Under US law, "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

In addition to copyright law, you need to worry about trademark law. Which is similar but not identical. TM allows what's called "nominative fair use," that is, the use of a trademark to identify a product or entity when you're talking about them, rather than using it to identify your own product (which would mislead people into thinking it was produced by the TM owner).

So, if you're creating a presentation about coffee in the U.S., you can use the trademarked name "Starbucks" to refer to the chain of coffee shops. You might be able to use their logo to represent them, but even that is getting iffy -- nominative fair use generally requires using the minimum of the trademarked thing as necessary, and the name is a perfectly understandable way to refer to the stores. You don't need the picture of the logo, so it is more likely to be an infringement. And actually, not a plain infringement, where you use someone's TM yourself, the claim would be for dilution, or disparagement, based on unauthorized use of a TM in a way that reduces its effectiveness for the TM owner to identify their own goods or services.

And all that said, the analysis of TM fair use is similar to that of CR. If this presentation is purely informative and not used for commercial gain, it is less likely to be found to be an infringement. Still, the safest course is to use only the name, not the logo.

 

[Kaylee]

Under US law, "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." I don't know exactly the context in which you're using these logos, but it sounds to me that you are specifically using them for criticism and comment (on the organizations).

Thanks Drkitten.

I am referring to the logos for comment and criticism purposes. I thought the Fair Use Act might apply, and I'm glad that you mentioned it and think that it may apply too. I feel that the odds have dramatically increased that this isn't wishful thinking on my part.

I don't happen to work for a school or news organization, but since I'm using the information for the same purposes that a school or news organzation employee would -- it seems that the Fair Use Act should apply to me also in this specific case.

I suspect that the Fair Use Act doesn't apply to the graphic, illustration or photos because I'm using those to help make my points, but I'm not discussing what they are snapshots of specifically. For that reason I'm guessing that the Fair Use Act would not apply to those files.

I appreciate your responding and I'll PM you with a link to the PPT.

Thanks again!

K

ETA: And thanks to piggy and ejk also -- I'm a slow writer!

It is only for informative use. I probably will present it in person at most once or twice. But mostly it will be disributed by e-mail upon request or though web sites whose target audience are people with hearing loss (PwHL). So I think it will be OK to use their logos. At most, I think its fair to assume that only one out of the five organizations (the one I'm criticizing) wouldn't want me to use their logo.

 

[drkitten]

I don't happen to work for a school or news organization, but since I'm using the information for the same purposes that a school or news organzation employee would -- it seems that the Fair Use Act should apply to me also in this specific case.

Your employer isn't relevant; you don't need to work for a school to be "teaching" or for a newspaper to be a reporter. So, as far as I can tell, you're correct.

I suspect that the Fair Use Act doesn't apply to the graphic, illustration or photos because I'm using those to help make my points, but I'm not discussing what they are snapshots of specifically.

That's one of the differences between the teaching exception and the "criticism" exception.

As a "teacher" (for educational purposes), I can use anything in the whole wide world without violating copyright. This applies as well if I'm running a tutorial at a professional meeting or something like that. But if I'm only "criticizing" then I need to keep the examples relevant to the actual material I'm criticizing.

So if you're covered under the teaching exception, then illustrative examples, even if not discussed specifically, are still covered.

 

[ejk]

As a "teacher" (for educational purposes), I can use anything in the whole wide world without violating copyright.

I don't think that's quite right. Fair use gives you a lot of latitude, sure. But you would not, for instance, have the right to scan an entire text book and e-mail it to all your students so they don't have to buy the book. You could probably copy paragraphs, pages, even (maybe) chapters, but at some point you cross the line of having an effect on the market for the original, which is a very bad factor under fair use analysis.

Sorry if this is a bit of a derail, it's not pertinent to the OP, I just can't help but be pedantic when it's something I know a bit about.

 

[Kaylee]

Your employer isn't relevant; you don't need to work for a school to be "teaching" or for a newspaper to be a reporter. So, as far as I can tell, you're correct.




That's one of the differences between the teaching exception and the "criticism" exception.

As a "teacher" (for educational purposes), I can use anything in the whole wide world without violating copyright. This applies as well if I'm running a tutorial at a professional meeting or something like that. But if I'm only "criticizing" then I need to keep the examples relevant to the actual material I'm criticizing.

So if you're covered under the teaching exception, then illustrative examples, even if not discussed specifically, are still covered.

Well than, it looks like I'm covered by the Fair Use Act. While I am critical of one organization, I think my presentation is also teaching about that organization's particular product.

However, I've worked for a few years as a programmer so as a result I'm very sympathetic to the idea of people getting paid for their work when possible, even if it is easy to copy.

I'll probably go ahead and spend the $7-$14.00 to have royalty free rights for the 7 photographs. I do understand your explanation, and I also realize that probably the "middleman" will get most of the $1.00 - $2.00 payment per photo and not the photographer ... but I suspect that I'll probably still end up doing that.

 

[Piggy]

I don't think that's quite right. Fair use gives you a lot of latitude, sure. But you would not, for instance, have the right to scan an entire text book and e-mail it to all your students so they don't have to buy the book. You could probably copy paragraphs, pages, even (maybe) chapters, but at some point you cross the line of having an effect on the market for the original, which is a very bad factor under fair use analysis.

Yeah, we had a blow-up over course packets at the uni a few years back. Chapters were deemed to exceed fair use.

 

[Darat]

As a "belt and braces" precaution if you are using trademarked logos bung in a footnote stating who they belong to.